Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5, 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 first petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant with effect from 27.11.2003 in the school under the management of the sixth respondent and had her services, including the broken periods, regularised. Later, she was re-appointed on 01.06.2005, through Exhibit P2, in a promotional vacancy. When approval was sought, it was granted only from 25.06.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the first petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P8 revision before the first respondent.
3. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, she had her initial entry into service on 18.12.2003 and had her services, including the broken period, approved till 14.07.2006. Later, when she was re-appointed on 15.07.2006 in a transfer vacancy in the same school, the approval was accorded only from 25.06.2008. Aggrieved thereby, she submitted Exhibit P8(a) revision before the first respondent. Complaining of their non-disposal, both the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the first petitioner's appointment was approved only from 25.06.2008 on the premise that the promoted candidate, in whose vacancy she was appointed, had her promotion approved only from 25.06.2008. Consequently, the appointment of the second petitioner was also approved from the same date on the ground that the services of the first petitioner, who is senior to the second petitioner, were approved from 25.06.2008. In other words, according to the learned counsel, both the approvals were prospective in view of the fact that the promoted candidate had her promotion approved only from 25.06.2008. The learned counsel has also submitted that the promoted candidate, in course of time, approached this Court and had her promotion approved retrospectively and as such, the ground on which the prospective approval was given to both the petitioners was no longer valid.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that the petitioners have already taken recourse to statutory remedy by submitting Exhibits P8 and P8(a) revisions before the first respondent. He contends that it would suffice if the writ petition is disposed of without adverting to the merits of the matter, thereby giving a direction to the first respondent to consider the revisions in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibits P8 and P8(a) revisions of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv