Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, 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's mother, who was a junior Hindi teacher in a school under the management of the 3rd respondent, died on 30.05.1992 in harness. Staking a claim for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is said to have made an application to the 3rd respondent on 15.05.1994. Since then, the petitioner has been approaching the authorities as well as the Manager pressing her claim for appointment under dying in harness scheme. Complaining that the 3rd respondent has gone ahead appointing fresh hands by ignoring her claim under Rule 51B, the petitioner is said to have filed Ext.P9 revision before the 1st respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent, who has sought approval of appointment of certain other teachers, his own appointees, having filed W.P.(C) No. 28304 of 2014, has strenuously opposed the claim of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has revived her claim after 22 years from the date of her mother's death. According to him, the claim of the petitioner is totally barred by efflux of time.
4. Be that as it may, the petitioner has taken recourse to a statutory remedy, namely, revision. On an assertion that the claim is not sustainable, this Court cannot pre-empt the right of the petitioner to seek a statutory remedy. In other words, it is for the revisional authority to decide the claim of the petitioner on merits, including that of delay, if any.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P9 revision petition, if it is received and pending, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing not only to the petitioner, but also to the 3rd respondent Manager apart from any other affected persons, 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.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv