Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, 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 Casual Cleaner in the Physical Education Department in the first respondent University through Exhibit P1 dated 25.04.2012. Later, his appointment has been approved by the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University as per Exhibit P2. In course of time, the petitioner was sent on work arrangement to work as Casual Care Taker to another place through Exhibit P3. Though the tenure of other WPC 34607/14 2 similarly placed persons has been extended through Exhibit P5, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the authorities have not extended the same treatment. In that context, the petitioner is said to have submitted a representation before the second respondent, who in turn, forwarded the same to the first respondent through Exhibit P6. Seeking an expeditious decision by the first respondent University based on Exhibit P6 recommendation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, which is forwarded by the second respondent along with his recommendation on Exhibit P6, in accordance with law and WPC 34607/14 3 pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv