SADASHIV SALMANTAPI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to bring the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 3/7/1995 and confirm the services of the petitioner on the date when the services of the similarly situated employees were confirmed. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-N, dtd. 18/4/2013.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Facts leading to filing of this writ petition as revealed from the records that may be necessary for disposal of this writ petition are, the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent - Corporation under the category of Scheduled Caste in the year 1992. It is the case of the petitioner that though the Conductors, who were appointed along with him were brought on probation by an order dtd. 3/7/1995 itself. However, the petitioner's case for bringing him under probation was not considered by the respondents. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had given a representation to the competent authority.