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, who joined the service on 9.6.1980 as a part time Needle Works (Specialist) Teacher, after rendering 28 years of service, retired on 21.3.2008. It appears, all through the petitioner worked only as a part time teacher.
3. In course of time, various other similarly placed teachers seem to have approached this Court assailing the inaction of the respondent authorities in regularising their services. In that context, the Government issued Ext.P9 proceedings on 31.12.2009, prospectively, though. In justification of the petitioner's not laying any challenge against the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents concerning the regularisation of her service as a full time teacher, the learned counsel would submit that she went on making representations to the authorities while she was in service.
W.P.(C)No.4525 OF 2014 : 2 :
4. The learned counsel has, however, submitted that the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation on 10.1.2012 which has not been disposed of so far by the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P12 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE