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, an Assistant Teacher in the school under the management of the fifth respondent, got her services approved from 19.06.2009, though she joined in a regular vacancy with effect from 01.07.2008. Similarly, the sixth respondent is said to have had continuous service with effect from 21.07.2008. Later, when a permanent vacancy arose, through Exhibit P3 the authorities accommodated the sixth respondent, instead of WPC 31635/14 2 the petitioner. In that context, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P7 representation before the first respondent, who is yet to consider it on merits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the petitioner and the sixth respondent are working as Assistant Teachers in a Special School and the post sought to be filled up being entirely of different category, the question of inter se seniority between the petitioner and the sixth respondent does not arise. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already submitted Exhibit P7 representation before the first respondent, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the issue on merits at this juncture.
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 WPC 31635/14 3 the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P7 representation of the petitioner 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