Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, 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 Part- time High School Assistant (Arabic) in the school under the management of the fourth respondent for the academic year 2005-06. Though in course of time more number of pupils opted for the subject of Arabic language and thus, though sufficient number of periods were available, in the light of the ban subsisting, the Part-time post in which the petitioner was working was not converted into a Full time post. Later, on 05.05.2012 the authorities issued Exhibit P3 proceedings admitting Full time post in the light of lifting of the ban. It was WPC 31089/14 2 made prospectively applicable from the academic year 2011-12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Exhibit P4 representation before the first respondent seeking admissibility of Full time post retrospectively from 2005-06. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner has approached this Court.
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 adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P4 representation 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