Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant from 2.6.2011 to 1.8.2011 in a leave vacancy in a school under the management of the fifth respondent. When approval was sought, the fourth respondent rejected it through Ext.P8 order, against which the management filed Ext.P9 appeal. Later, the third respondent, the appellate authority, rejected the said appeal through Ext.P10.
3. In a second spell, the petitioner was again appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant from 9.12.2011 to 30.3.2012. When approval was sought, it was again rejected by the fourth respondent through Ext.P11 order, which was appealed against through Ext.P12.
W.P.(C)No.29284 OF 2014 : 2 :
The third respondent, however, rejected the said appeal too through Ext.P13. Eventually, the petitioner filed Ext.P17 statutory revision before the second respondent questioning Exts.P10 and P13 orders of rejection in the respective appeals. Complaining of non-disposal of Ext.P7, petitioner 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 for the respondents, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P17 revision in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent management, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE