Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent, 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 father, who was working as a Drawing Teacher in the first respondent school, died on 07.08.2005 in harness. Soon thereafter, the petitioner's mother submitted Exhibit P5 application on 05.11.2005 before the first respondent to consider her case for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner himself has submitted Exhibits P7, P9, P10, P12 and P14 representations. It seems that Exhibit P10 is a statutory application dated 03.06.2011. Eventually, the third respondent passed Exhibit P11 order; later the second respondent passed Exhibit P13 order.
WPC 29209/13 2
3. Despite Exhibits P11 and P13 orders passed by the competent authorities, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the first respondent Manager has not responded positively, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P14 representation. 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 counsel for the first respondent, 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 P14 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv