YOHANNAN.K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P8 order passed by the third respondent, whereby regularisation of service pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 22.12.2011 was declined to the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts are thus:- Petitioner has worked as an empanelled driver under respondents 2 to 4 and his service commenced from 04.04.1996. Even though, all his fellow workers are regularised in service as they had completed ten years, petitioner was left out. According to the petitioner, petitioner has completed more than sixteen years of service and is eligible for regularisation. The petitioner has not been engaged after July 2012. It is in this background petitioner has submitted representation before the second respondent seeking to regularise in service which was declined as per Ext.P8 order. It is thus challenging Ext.P8, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Corporation, perused pleadings and documents on record. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is warranted in Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent dated 11.04.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petitioner. That apart, it is contended that even though, petitioner was out of service for a short period as provided under Ext.P1 notification, petitioner has completed 10 years of service entitled to get benefit of the said notification. Therefore according to the petitioner, Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent suffers from the wise of arbitrariness and illegality.