Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, 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 initially joined as High School Assistant (English) in a school under the management of the fourth respondent and had her services approved in course of time. When the management sought to fill up the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher by transfer, notwithstanding the eligibility of the petitioner, her claim was ignored. In that context, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3 representation and later approached this Court questioning the delay in its consideration. Pursuant to Exhibit P4 judgment of this Court, the third respondent WPC 33468/14 2 considered Exhibit P3 representation of the petitioner and eventually passed Exhibit P7 order of rejection.
3. Aggrieved by Exhibit P7 order, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P10 statutory revision before the first respondent. Seeking its expeditious disposal, the petitioner has 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 first respondent to consider Exhibit P10 statutory revision 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 copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv