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. Briefly stated, the petitioner initially joined the school under the management of the 4th respondent in the year 1995 as UPSA. Later, when the vacancy of UPSA (Natural Science) arose on the retirement of an incumbent teacher on 31.03.2013, the petitioner is said to have submitted a representation to the 4th respondent with copy to the 3rd respondent seeking promotion in the retirement vacancy. Instead of promoting the petitioner in the said vacancy, the 4th respondent promoted the petitioner in a newly created vacancy, which had not been sanctioned by the Government to this day. When the 4th respondent sought the approval of the petitioner's appointment in the newly created vacancy, it was rejected by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P7. Questioning Ext.P7 rejection, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal before the 2nd respondent, who is yet to dispose it of.
On the parallel lines, when the 5th respondent was appointed in the retirement vacancy, through Ext.P9, ventilating the grievance that her claim had been ignored, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 revision before the 1st respondent. Complaining that both Ext.P8 appeal and Ext.P10 revision have not been disposed of by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Apart from addressing the issue on merits, which this Court is not inclined to consider, the learned Government Pleader has also submitted that Ext.P9 approval order in favour of the 5th respondent was passed very recently, and as such, he is not sure whether any revision has already reached the 1st respondent. Countering the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Ext.P9 order was passed in 2013 and soon thereafter, the revision was preferred. The year 2014 mentioned in the reference number cited in Ext.P9 is by oversight and the petitioner has even taken a plea to that effect in the writ petition. Be that as it may, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition with a suitable direction to the respondent authorities.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P10 revision and Ext.P8 appeal respectively, if they have already been received and pending, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned, including respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Since both the petitioners and the 5th respondent are said to be continuing in the respective positions, until Ext.P8 appeal and Ext.P10 revision are disposed of by the respondent authorities, the authorities shall maintain status quo concerning the respective positions of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. If desired, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before either of the authorities i.e., the 1st and 2nd respondent. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv