Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, 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 UPSA, was initially appointed in a leave vacancy in a school under the management of the 2nd respondent. Later, she was transferred to another school under the same management in a promotional vacancy. But her appointment was not approved despite her claim under Rule 51A of KER, on the ground that there was no established vacancy, inasmuch as the person, who had been promoted facilitating the vacancy, did not have his promotion approved. Be that as it may, aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of rejection, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision W.P.(C.) No. 32265/2014 -2-
petition before the first respondent. Complaining of its non- disposal, the petitioner approached this Court.
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 expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision petition in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four 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. 32265/2014 -3-