Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who is said to have worked on a temporary basis as a last grade employee in the respondent Bank from January 1993 to 03.09.2002, had his services terminated. Aggrieved thereby though he filed O.S.No.786/2003 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur, his claim for declaration and other benefits was rejected through Exhibit P1 judgment.
WPC 32931/14 2
3. As could be seen from the record, in course of time, the respondent Bank came up with Exhibit P2 notification calling for applications from eligible candidates to be appointed as Casual Workers/Personal Drivers. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite his Exhibit P3 application in response to Exhibit P2 notification, so far the respondent Bank has not processed the same one way or another.
4. Without joining the issue, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has fairly submitted that petitioner's Exhibit P3 application is under active consideration and an appropriate decision concerning his claim to the post in question will be taken in two months' time.
Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Bank to WPC 32931/14 3 consider petitioner's Exhibit P3 application in terms of Exhibit P2 notification, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv