Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, 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 first petitioner was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher with effect from 23.03.2013 in a newly created vacancy in the school under the management of the fourth respondent. Similarly, the second petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant on the same day in another newly created vacancy. The approval, however, was given only from 03.06.2013 through Exhibits P5 and P6 respectively.
3. Ventilating the grievance that another person who was appointed on the same day in the same school was given approval from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 23.03.2013, WPC 31362/14 2 and that in the light of Exhibits P5 and P6, the petitioners are constrained to opt for Contributory Pension Scheme introduced on 01.04.2013, the petitioners filed Exhibits P8 and P9 appeals before the third respondent. Complaining of their non-disposal, the petitioners have approached this Court.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider Exhibits P8 and P9 appeals of the petitioners 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