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 was appointed as LPSA from 01.06.2011 in a promotional vacancy in the school under the management of the 4th respondent. Through Ext.P1 the said appointment was approved only on daily wage basis. Aggrieved thereby, when the petitioner filed a revision petition, it was rejected by the 2nd respondent. Eventually, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision before the 1st respondent. Seeking it expeditious disposal, the petitioner has approached this Court.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the W.P.(C.) No. 34987/2014 -2-
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 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P8 revision petition in accordance with law 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 W.P.(C.) No. 34987/2014 -3-