IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38272 of 2008(F) PETITIONER: --------------- SASIKUMAR A.P., PADMA NIVAS, SREEKRISHNAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD-679 513, NOW WORKING AS BUS CLEANER, GOVT. ENGINEERING COLLEGE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 38272 OF 2008 F ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was engaged as Bus Cleaner in the Government Engineering College, Sreekrishnapuram on daily wage basis. He was worked intermittently from 2000 onwards. It is stated that though a request was made to the Kerala Public Service Commission to appoint a Bus Cleaner, the Public Service Commission has informed that no rank list is in currency. On 23.4.2008, the petitioner was again ordered to be engaged on daily wage basis as Bus Cleaner. He is continuing on duty as such. The petitioner states that he has acquired the necessary qualification for the post of Bus Cleaner. He is over-aged to apply for selection to the post. Pointing out these facts and praying for regularising the service of the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 14.7.2008 to the Director of Technical Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram (second respondent). Ext.P6 is pending disposal. W.P.(C) NO.38272 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation within a reasonable time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (ii) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner in service; (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and allow this petition with all costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for the present, the petitioner would confine his relief to relief (i). Learned Government Pleader submitted that the second respondent will dispose of Ext.P6 representation expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The second respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P6 representation, after consultation with the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of four months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. W.P.(C) NO.38272 OF 2008 :: 3 :: b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the second respondent within two weeks. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/