Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, 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 joined the service of the respondent Board on 06.05.1998 under the quota earmarked for physically challenged persons. Later, she was re-appointed as Junior Assistant with effect from 09.07.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she was entitled to be promoted as Senior Assistant by 09.11.2004, she was given promotion very belatedly only on 24.02.2006. Seeking re-assignment of her seniority in the WPC 34681/14 2 promotional post, the petitioner is said to have made numerous representations, including Exhibit P7. Seeking expeditious disposal of Exhibit P7, the last in the series of representations, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board has submitted that on an earlier occasion too, the petitioner filed a similar writ petition, but withdrew it when this Court was not inclined to entertain it.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has made series of representations and it is appropriate for the respondent Board to consider them on the issue of re-assignment of seniority strictly 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 Standing Counsel, this Court, WPC 34681/14 3 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P7 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv