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 initially appointed as Peon from 10.06.2014 in a leave without allowance vacancy in a school under the management of the 4th respondent. In due course, the appointment was approved. Later, the petitioner was re-appointed in the same post from 12.12.2008 to 11.12.2013 against the extended leave vacancy and the said appointment too was approved by the authorities. On the third occasion as well, the petitioner was re-appointed from 12.12.2013 against the extended leave vacancy. But, its approval was declined by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P7 order stating that the leave vacancy would be filled up only W.P.(C.) No.28636/2014 -2-
temporarily and, that too, for six months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision petition before the 1st respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
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 expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 revision petition in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No.28636/2014 -3-