The petitioner claims that he is the seniormost High School Assistant (HSA) in the 1st respondent school, who is eligible to be promoted to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher HSST, functioning under the same management. It is stated that, during the academic year 2013-14 five posts of HSST was sanctioned by the Government, out of which one post was of HSST Junior (Mathematics). Eventhough the selection committee interviewed the petitioner, the 4th respondent was promoted overlooking seniority of the petitioner. Under such circumstances the petitioner is challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the 4th respondent is yet to be approved by the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner had submitted Ext.11 objection before the 2nd respondent. If that be the situation it is for the petitioner to pursue remedies before the 2nd respondent. Needless to observe that if the 2nd respondent takes a decision WP(C). 6845 /2014 2 approving appointment of the 4th respondent discarding the objections of the petitioner, he has got effective statutory remedy.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances this court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be served by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner against approval of appointment of the 4th respondent, if the same has not already been approved.
4. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P11 objections raised by the petitioner against approval of appointment of the 4th respondent as HSST Junior, if the approval is not already granted. The 2nd respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and others concerned on the basis of Ext.P11, before taking any decision in the matter.