Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, apart from perusing the records. 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 in the voluntary retirement vacancy on 31/5/2009 in AUP School, Manipuram, through Ext.P1. When the appointment of the petitioner was sought to be approved, the 2nd respondent rejected it through Ext.P2. Though an appeal was filed against the rejection in Ext.P2, eventually, the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, also rejected the claim for approval through Ext.P4. Eventually, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision petition before the additional 3rd respondent. In so far as the petitioner's subsequent appointment is concerned, it stood approved through Ext.P3. Complaining of non- disposal of Ext.P7 revision, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in Ext.P7 revision is no longer res integra in as much as there is definitive judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in State of Kerala v.Sneha Cheriyan {2013 (1) KLT 755 (SC)}.
4. The learned Government Pleader has strenuously submitted that there is no delay on the part of the respondent authority in considering Ext.P7 revision, which in fact, was filed only subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 additional 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision in accordance with law, especially by taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v.Sneha Cheriyan(cited supra) and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.
dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.