Heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 Full-time Menial (FTM) from 25.06.2012 in an anticipated additional division vacancy in a school under the management of the 5th respondent. When approval of the appointment was sought, it was however rejected by the 4th respondent through Ext.P2. The further appeal and revision thereafter were also rejected by the 3rd and 2nd respondent through Exts.P5 and P6 respectively. In those circumstances, the petitioner is said to have filed Ext.P7 statutory revision before the 1st respondent.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the said statutory revision has not been disposed of by the authorities.
WPC No.25639/14
2
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, without entering in to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 statutory revision filed by 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. Needless to observe, if the petitioner seeks an opportunity of being heard in person, the 1st respondent shall consider the same.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj