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 initially appointed with effect from 03.06.2013 as LPSA in a promotional vacancy in the school under the management of the 4th respondent. When approval was sought, it was rejected by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is said to have filed Ext.P6 revision before the additional 5th respondent. That apart, the petitioner is also said to have filed Ext.P5 appeal questioning the staff fixation order for the academic year 2013-2014. Complaining of their non- consideration, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
W.P.(C.) No.30898/2014 -2-
3. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that Ext.P5 appeal is not maintainable. Insofar as Ext.P6 revision is concerned, he has submitted that the revisional authority will be taking all steps to dispose it of expeditiously.
Having regard to the 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 and 2nd and additional 5th respondents to consider Exts.P5 and P6 appeal and revision respectively in accordance with law, subject to their maintainability, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No.30898/2014 -3-