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 appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant on 01.06.2010 in a newly created post in a school under the management of the fifth respondent.Though the appointment was not initially approved on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed during the subsistence of ban, later, owing to the subsequent developments, especially in terms of G.O.(P)No. 199/2011/G.Edn. dated 01.10.2011, the petitioner's WPC 32838/14 2 appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2011, i.e., prospectively.
3. Contending that her appointment ought to have been approved from 01.06.2010 rather than from 01.06.2011, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P5 revision before the first respondent. Complaining of delay in its disposal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in compliance with the directions of the Government, the fifth respondent Manager executed a bond and later appointed the protected teachers as well. Drawing my attention to Exhibit P4 judgment of this Court, the learned counsel has further contended that the entire issue stands squarely settled that the authorities ought to have given retroactive approval to the petitioner's appointment.
WPC 32838/14 3
5. Be that as it may, since a statutory revision is pending before the first respondent, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the issue on merits.
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 expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P5 revision of the petitioner in accordance with law 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