Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (English) with effect from 05.06.2013 in the school under the management of the fifth respondent. Later, the petitioner's appointment was approved in two spells, i.e. initially from 05.06.2013 to 31.03.2014 on daily wage basis; from 02.06.2014 on regular basis. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Exhibit P2 revision before the first respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue stands squarely covered by a judgment of the WPC 29919/14 2 Honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan (2013 (1) KLT 755) and that the petitioner's revision ought to be considered based on the ratio laid down in the said judgment.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that the first respondent would be taking all efforts to dispose of Exhibit P2 revision at the earliest.
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 P2 revision of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner 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