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 is said to have approved continuous service as High School Assistant (Maths) from 02.06.2004 in a regular vacancy in a school under the management of the 5th respondent. The 6th respondent, on the other hand, is said to have continuous service from 01.01.2008 in the same rank. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the seniority list that came to be published, the petitioner was placed below the 6th respondent, who according to the petitioner, is junior to her. Aggrieved W.P.(C.) No. 28641/2014 -2-
thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1st respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner approached this Court.
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.P6 revision petition in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two 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. 28641/2014 -3-