Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed on 26.06.2006 as Lower Grade Urdu teacher in an anticipated additional division vacancy in the school under the management of the fifth respondent. When approval was sought, the third respondent rejected it on the ground that the petitioner was appointed during the ban period. Even the appeal filed against the said decision was rejected by the third respondent. Eventually, in the light of the policy decision taken by the Government, through Exhibit P2 petitioner's appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2011, i.e., prospectively.
WPC 28880/14 2 Seeking retrospective approval, the petitioner has filed Exhibit P5 revision before the first respondent. Complaining of its non- disposal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P5 revision of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent Manager and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv