Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader 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 first petitioner, the Manager of St. Paul's High School, Kozhinjampara, Palakkad District, said to be a Minority Educational Institution, appointed the second petitioner as the Headmaster. When approval was sought, it was rejected by the third respondent through Exhibit P6. Aggrieved thereby, the first petitioner filed Exhibit P7 statutory revision before the fourth respondent, the Government. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
W.P.(c) No. 30397 of 2014 2
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that way back in 1983, through Exhibit P1, the Government recognized the status of the petitioners' Educational Institution as a Minority one. According to him, it was again reiterated as recently as on 08.12.2004 through Exhibit P9 proceedings issued by the Government. In those circumstances, the order in Exhibit P6 passed by the third respondent, contends the learned Senior Counsel, is totally unsustainable.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioners have already taken recourse to Exhibit P7 statutory revision, which is yet to be decided on merits by the fourth respondent. According to him, at this juncture, any adjudication on merits would pre-empt the statutory right of the fourth respondent to consider the issue on merits.
5. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the W.P.(c) No. 30397 of 2014 3 present writ petition with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider Exhibit P7 statutory revision of the petitioners in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, 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 copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-