Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed as UPSA on 05.06.2007 in the fourth respondent School. When the Manager of the fourth respondent School sought approval of the appointment of the petitioner, it was rejected by the first respondent. The said rejection stood confirmed both in appeal and revision that were laid by the management subsequently. In any event, in the light of the policy decision taken by the Government subsequently, the petitioner's appointment was approved from 09.12.2012. Not satisfied with the prospective approval of her appointment with effect from 01.06.2011, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 representation to the fifth respondent. Complaining of its non consideration, the petitioner approached this Court.
3. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner ought to have filed a revision under Rule 92 Chapter XIV of KER and Exhibit P2 does not meet the requirement of being a statutory revision. According to him, unless a properly constituted statutory revision is on file, the fifth respondent cannot be expected to take a decision in that regard.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply thereto has submitted that under Rule 92 no statutory format has been prescribed and Exhibit P2 can as well be treated as a revision.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that aggrieved by Exhibit P1 approval of the petitioner's appointment prospectively, the petitioner did ventilate her grievance before the fifth respondent through Exhibit P2. It is true that Exhibit P2 is in the form of a representation rather than a revision. In the absence of any statutory format prescribed, especially given the fact that the powers of the Government under Rule 92 are quite expansive, it is desirable to drive the petitioner to another round of litigation by insisting that she should file a statutory revision in proper format before the Government. In my considered view, it will sub-serve the interest of justice if the first respondent authorities treat Exhibit P2 as a revision and consider the same in accordance with law, instead of insisting on technical compliance.
6. 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 fifth respondent to consider Exhibit P2 representation/revision in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner, 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. It is made clear that, if required, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with copy of the judgment before the fifth respondent authorities to enable them to comply with the directions of this Court.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-