Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, 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 first petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in an approved vacancy on 15.07.1993 in the school under the management of the fifth respondent. Later, he was promoted as High School Assistant (Social Science) on 15.07.1994, in which position he is said to have been continuing.
3. Similarly, the second petitioner was initially appointed on 25.06.1992 as Upper Primary School Assistant in an approved vacancy and later promoted as High School Assistant (Social Science) on 01.06.1998
4. While both the petitioners have been continuing as HSAs, the fourth respondent issued Exhibit P1 staff fixation order on 15.07.2014 proposing to revert the petitioners along with certain other teachers on the ground of reduction in the student strength. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are said to have submitted Exhibits P4 and P5 revision petitions before the second respondent. Complaining of their non-disposal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are protected teachers in terms of Exhibit P2 Government Order and that they ought not to be reverted. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that since statutory revisions are pending before the second respondent, it may not be proper at this stage to adjudicate the issue on merits. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 second respondent to consider Exhibits P4 and P5 statutory revisions in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as well as any other affected person, including the fifth respondent Manager, 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. Since the petitioners apprehend that they will be reverted in terms of Exhibit P1 staff fixation order, there shall be an interim direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders regarding the petitioners'
apprehended reversion as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month. Till such time, the status quo as on today concerning the position of the petitioners as HSAs shall be maintained. The petitioners are at liberty to move the second respondent with necessary applications for obtaining the necessary interim directions.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv