Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, 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 is working as HSA (Natural Science) in the 5th respondent's school, has not been retained and is presently under the threat of deployment. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she ought to have been retained by giving the benefit of 1:35 ratio, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P9 proposing to deploy the petitioner to other schools as a cluster coordinator. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 revision, which is said to be pending before the 1st respondent. Though initially the petitioner sought certain substantive reliefs, eventually she filed I.A. No. 13429 of 2014 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P11 revision in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far the petitioner has not been deployed, but there is every threat of deployment at any point of time in the face of Ext.P9.
3. Instead of considering the issue on merits, when this Court proposed to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to adjudicate on Ext.P11 revision, the learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of Ext.P11 revision before the 1st respondent. According to her, in terms of Rule 12 E of Chapter XXIII of KER, the competent authority is the 2nd respondent, but not the 1st respondent.
4. At any rate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revision is very much maintainable before the 1st respondent in terms of Rule 92 of Chapter XIV of KER. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent has submitted that the Manager ought to be heard before Ext.P11 revision could be decided.
5. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to adjudicate the issue on merits. It will suffice, if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 revision in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 revision in accordance with law 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. It is further made clear that in the face of the objection raised by the learned Government Pleader as to the very maintainability of the revision before the 1st respondent, it is needless to observe that the revisional authority shall also take into account the aspect of maintainability before adjudicating the issue on merits, if required. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, at the time of adjudicating on Ext.P11, the 1st respondent shall give an opportunity of being heard in person to all the parties concerned. If desired, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent at the time of hearing concerning Ext.P11 revision. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv