Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, 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, a senior most teacher, was initially put in charge as Headmistress of the school under the management of the third respondent owing to the retirement of the incumbent on 31.03.2014. Later, the fourth respondent, who is working as a High School Assistant, raised an objection concerning the appointment of the petitioner as in charge Headmistress. The fourth respondent filed W.P.(C)No.15490/2014 and WPC 30796/14 2 invited Exhibit P7 judgment, through which this Court directed the first respondent to consider the claim of the fourth respondent after hearing all the parties concerned. Consequently, when approval was sought for the appointment of the petitioner, based on the rival claim raised by the fourth respondent, the first respondent passed Exhibit P11 order upholding the claim of the fourth respondent, rather than that of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Exhibit P12 appeal before the second respondent, who is yet to consider it. Complaining of its non-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 Government Pleader, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent WPC 30796/14 3 to consider Exhibit P12 appeal 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. Until the appeal is disposed of, the status quo as on today concerning the position of the petitioner shall be maintained.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv