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 part- time teacher from 03.06.2008 against a retirement vacancy in the 5th respondent's school. The very vacancy that arose on the retirement of the incumbent is said to be a full-time one. Later, the petitioner was also granted full-time post by way of Group 'C' diversion. When approval was sought, it was granted on part-time basis rather than full-time basis by the second respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P14 statutory revision before the 1st respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of Group 'C' diversion, the approval ought to have been on full time basis. In this regard, the learned counsel has also drawn the W.P.(C) No. 28579/2014 -2-
attention of this Court to G.O.(Ms.) No. 62/73/S.Edn. Dated 02.05.1973.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that since the 1st respondent has been actively seized of Ext.P14 statutory revision, it may not be appropriate at this juncture to have the matter adjudicated on merits.
Be that as it may, 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.P14 statutory revision 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. 28579/2014 -3-