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 was initially appointed as HSA (English) from 02.06.2008 to 31.05.2010 in a long leave vacancy in a school under the management of the 5th respondent. In due course, the appointment was approved. Later, the petitioner was re-appointed in the same post from 01.06.2010 to 31.05.2011 against the extended leave vacancy and the said appointment too was approved by the authorities. On the third occasion, the petitioner was re-appointed from 01.06.2011 in a regular vacancy that arose owing to the retirement of the incumbent teacher in another school under the management of the 5th respondent. It W.P.(C.) No. 28628/2014 -2-
appears that this appointment too was approved by the authorities concerned.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of approving her appointment on each occasion up to 31st May, the authorities approved her appointment only up to 31st March, thus excluding the vacation. In that context, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision petition before the first respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner 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 expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 revision petition in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner, 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. 28628/2014 -3-