IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 484 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- R.SURESH BABU, S/O.RAJAGOPAL, TECHNICIAN, ANERT, MAVUVILA VEEDU, MUTTADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY, (ANERT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. U.JANARDHANAN, STATE CO-COORDINATOR-FIELD IMPLEMENTATION, ANERT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.484/2010 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1365/95/ADM DTD. 27/07/95 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3/1709/2006/ANERT DTD.26/06/2006 MADE BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RESTRUCTURING REPORT DTD. 24/09/2007. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GOVERNMENT ORDER (P) NO.9/2009/PD DTD. 18/09/2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P6: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.A2/6761/2000/ANERT DTD. 18/11/2006 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 02/08/02 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.8927/02. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.484 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 he was appointed as a Technician on an adhoc basis. Such appointment was on 27.7.1995 and according to the petitioner he continued in service as such till 12.5.2009. It is stated that in the meanwhile, though by Ext.P3 a proposal was made for regularisation of certain employees like him, he was not regularised and his services were also dispensed with. At that stage, he filed Ext.P4 representation seeking regularisation based on Ext.P3 and the said representation is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent and orders have not been passed on it. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 in the light of Ext.P3 and other relevant documents. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this Writ Petition. W.P.(C) No.484/2010 2 Needless to say that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ps