Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Universities, 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 initially appointed from 12.01.2006 to 31.05.2008 as a Lecturer in Economics in the 2nd respondent College, affiliated to the 5th respondent University. The petitioner's appointment was approved. Since the petitioner was appointed in a leave vacancy, when the incumbent joined duty on 01.06.2008, the 3rd respondent i.e., the Management of the 2nd respondent College, transferred the petitioner to the 1st respondent College, affiliated to the 4th respondent University. The said transfer was effected on 31.05.2008 in a retirement vacancy. When approval was sought for this inter University transfer, the 4th respondent rejected it through Ext.P6.
3. At a later point of time, the 3rd respondent reappointed the W.P.(C.) No. 28766/2014 -2-
petitioner in the 2nd respondent college with effect from 01.06.2009 in a retirement vacancy and the said appointment was approved by the 5th respondent University. When the 3rd respondent as per letter No. F/7479/09 dated 11.12.2009 invited options for inter-university transfer, the petitioner is said to have exercised her option, and as a result she was transferred to the 1st respondent College once again, with effect from 05.06.2012. In fact, her transfer has been duly approved and the salary has been paid.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the period from 30.05.2008 to 31.05.2009, her tenure in the 1st respondent College has not been approved despite her numerous representations.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed Ext.P16 representation before the additional 9th respondent and that she seeks its expeditious disposal.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent University has, however, contended that the claim of the petitioner was earlier rejected based on the then extant statutory regulations. It is not necessary for this Court at this juncture to adjudicate the issue on merits.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective W.P.(C.) No. 28766/2014 -3-
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 additional 9th respondent to consider petitioner's Ext.P16 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If required, the petitioner shall place before the additional 9th respondent a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and any other material which she deems relevant for the purpose. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No. 28766/2014 -4-