Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, 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, a visually challenged person, being the Assistant Grade-II, applied to the third respondent seeking its leave to have the assistance of the scribe to face the departmental test and account test during 2005. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that around the same time, other people were allowed the benefit, as could be seen from Exhibit P7.
3. Denied the opportunity of having the assistance of a scribe, the petitioner is said to have gone on representing to W.P.(c) No. 33942 of 2014 2 various authorities including the first respondent. Exhibit P9 is said to be one of those representations pending consideration before the first respondent.
4. Though the petitioner claimed the substantial relief contending that she should be given retrospective promotion as if she had passed the departmental test, on account of unreasonable denial of opportunity for her to engage the assistance of a scribe, at the bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that it will suffice if a direction is given to the first respondent to consider petitioner's Exhibit P9 representation in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P9 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, 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 W.P.(c) No. 33942 of 2014 3 copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-