Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, 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 on 10.08.2001 as UPSA in a leave vacancy in the School under the management of the third respondent. In course of time, the petitioner is said to have been appointed in a permanent vacancy with effect from 05.06.2002.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that she being Rule 43 Claimant, the third respondent appointed her as W.P.(c) No. 32686 of 2014 2 HSA in a permanent vacancy in one of the Schools under the corporate management. Seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment, the third respondent is said to have submitted Exhibit P1 proposal to the second respondent. Complaining of delay in its consideration, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the light of the interim direction given in Exhibit P6, limiting the operation of G.O.(P) No.154/2014/G.Edn dated 11.08.2014 prospectively, Exhibit P1 representation ought to be considered.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P1 proposal of the third respondent in accordance with law, taking into account Exhibit P6 interim direction of this Court, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of W.P.(c) No. 32686 of 2014 3 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-