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 06.09.1993 in a School under the management of the fourth respondent. Later, she was promoted as HSA in the leave vacancy that arose on account of the leave granted to the incumbent teacher through Exhibit P3 proceedings.
3. The record reveals that since the incumbent teacher who got the leave without allowance sanctioned through Exhibit P3 absented herself from duty even before Exhibit P3 to be communicated, the Government seems to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said teacher treating her absence as unauthorised. It seems eventually that resulted in her removal through Exhibit P5 order. Thus, in the face of a permanent vacancy arising in the cadre of HSA, the petitioner continued to work in the fourth respondent School.
4. Initially, when a proposal was sent by the Headmistress of the fourth respondent School for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, it was rejected by the third respondent through Exhibit P1, a perusal of which reveals that the rejection was based on the ground that the proposal for the appointment has not been submitted by the Manager. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Exhibit P7 revision before the second respondent. Complaining of its non disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that though the Headmistress of the fourth respondent School submitted the proposal, the third respondent rejected it through Exhibit P1 on a mere technicality that there was no proposal for the appointment submitted by the very Manager, which according to the learned counsel is a trivial objection. According to him, there have been innumerable instances where the authorities approved the appointment of the petitioner when the proposals were sent by unapproved Managers. In that regard the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Exhibits P8 and P9 orders which concern themselves with the approval of appointments in the very fourth respondent School. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged this Court to allow the writ petition by issuing a necessary direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P7 revision in accordance with law.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Referring to Exhibit P1, he would contend that initially the petitioner was appointed from 11.01.2006 to 10.01.2011, but there afterwards there was no appointment made by the Manager of the fourth respondent School. According to him, in the absence of any appointment made by the Manager, approved or unapproved, the question of considering the case for approval does not arise. The learned Government Pleader has further tried to distinguish Exhibits P8 and P9 orders by contending that those are the instances where though the appointments were made, they were however made by unapproved Managers.
7. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to adjudicate the issue on merits. It will suffice if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider Exhibit P7 revision in accordance with law.
8. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P7 revision, duly taking into account Exhibits P7 and P9 orders, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
9. Needless to observe that if the petitioner seeks an opportunity of being heard in person, the same shall be considered by the authorities. If required, the petitioner may have to produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the second respondent.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-
The word “Exhibit P7” occurring in th 7the line of paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 08/10/2014 in W.P. (C) No. 25902/2014 is deleted and substituted as “Exhibit P8” as per order dated 07/01/2015 in I.A. 16474/2014 in W.P. (C) No. 25902/2014.
Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)