the petitioner for regularization, based on the service that was commenced pursuant to Ext.P4 order of appointment, cannot be legally sustained. The criteria spelt out through the various decisions of the Supreme Court, for regularisation of service of a casual employee, is not seen satisfied in the instant case. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that by Ext.P5 representation, the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent even before the expiry of the period indicated in Ext.P4 order, with a claim for reengagement on casual basis. Faced with the situation where this Court is not inclined to accept her claim for regularization, it is submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation, preferred by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with an incidental direction to permit the petitioner to continue in service till such time as orders are so passed. Taking note of the last submission of counsel for the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation preferred by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner. I make it clear that till such time as
