Sunanda Marigoudar vs The Common Cadre Committee

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.7.2010 vide annexure-E.

It is stated, the petitioner joined the service on daily wage basis in the 2nd respondent bank as clerk-cum-typist. The service of the petitioner was not regularized. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by order dated 3.5.2000 regularized the service of the petitioner to the post of Attender from 24.3.1999 instead of to the post of clerk-cum-typist. It was challenged in W.P. Nos. 29311-312/2000. This Court by order dated 26.6.2001 directed the respondents therein to consider the matter afresh. The 1st respondent rejected the application again on 13.11.2001. It was challenged in W.P. No. 32008/2002. During the pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 8.1.2003, the 1st respondent regularized the service of the petitioner to the post of Typist from the date of the order instead of from 24.3.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner has given representation as per annexure-E to the 1st respondent to regularize her services to the post of typist from 24.3.1999. The said representation has not been considered. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the service of petitioner has been regularized as Typist from the date of order i.e. 8.01.2003 instead of 24.3.1999. Therefore the petitioner has given representation as per annexure-E requesting to consider her claim from 1999 itself as she had passed PUC in the year 1989-90. The said representation has not been considered. Therefore, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner.

There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

It is relevant to note, the petitioner has joined service on daily basis to the post of clerk-cum-typist. Her services were not regularized. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court. Thereafter, the petitioner''s service has been regularized by order dated 3.5.2000 to the post of Attender from 24.3.1999 instead of to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist. The petitioner has approached this court in W.P. Nos. 29311-29312/2000. This Court has directed the respondent to consider the matter afresh. The application of the petitioner has been rejected. It was challenged in W.P. No. 32008/2002. During the pendency of the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent passed order dated 8.1.2003 regularising the service of the petitioner to the post of Typist from the date of the order. The petitioner has given representation as per Annexure-E requesting to consider her claim from 1999 as she had passed PUC in the year 1989-90 itself. The said representation has not been considered. The 1st respondent being the concerned authority ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner, but has failed to do so. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.7.2010 vide annexure-E and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.