Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and 6, 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 Higher Secondary School Teacher (Sanskrit), was denied promotion as Headmaster on the ground that he did not possess B.Ed. qualification. The order of denial in Exhibit P11 has been impugned in Exhibit P12 revision before the first respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
WPC 30913/14 2
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has passed Shiksha Shasthri Examination, which is equivalent to B.Ed., for all purposes, including promotion. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Susamma Varghese v. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT Case No.30 (Page No.26)).
4. At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that since the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy of revision before the first respondent, it may not be proper at this juncture to adjudicate the issue on merits.
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 adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P12 revision of the petitioner keeping in WPC 30913/14 3 view the decision rendered by this Court in Susamma's case (supra) 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