Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, 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 as UPSA from 01.06.2005 to 31.05.2006 in a leave vacancy and eventually got the said appointment approved, in a revision, by the Government through Exhibit P1. In terms of the said approved appointment, the petitioner has become Rule 51A claimant. Later, the petitioner was appointed in South Aryad School, Alappuzha, by the third respondent Manager. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the corporate management of the third W.P.(c) No. 30920 of 2014 2 respondent, there are many Schools where established vacancies are available. Despite the same, notwithstanding Rule 51A claim of the petitioner, she was appointed in a vacancy which has not been sanctioned by the authorities. In so far as the sanctioned vacancies in other Schools are concerned, many other teachers without Rule 51A claim or being juniors to the petitioner have been appointed. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P8 representation before the fourth respondent, apart from submitting Exhibit P9 representation for the consideration of the second respondent. Since the Schools of the third respondent corporate management have been spread across many Districts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the second respondent, who is competent to take decision based on Exhibit P9 representation made by the petitioner.
3. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the second respondent is inclined to take all steps to consider petitioner's Exhibit P9 representation in accordance with law.
W.P.(c) No. 30920 of 2014 3
4. 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, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P9 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 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.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-