Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, 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 petitioners, being the Assistant Librarians, have a grievance that the directions of UGC Anomaly Redressal Committee of the respondent University, as incorporated in Exhibit P4, have not been implemented in so far as the petitioners are concerned. In that respect they are said to have filed Exhibits P7 and P8 representations/complaints respectively before the second respondent, who is required to forward them to the first respondent. Complaining that the second respondent has W.P.(c) No. 29879 of 2014 2 not so far forwarded them, despite lapse of three years of time, the petitioners approached this Court.
3. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to forward Exhibits P7 and P8 representations to the first respondent, who in turn on receipt of the said representations, shall consider the same in accordance with law, especially by taking into account Exhibit P4 directions of the 4th UGC Anomaly Redressal committee, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of Exhibits P7 and P8 from the second respondent.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-