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 was appointed as a clerk in a school under the management of the 4th respondent with effect from 01.11.2006. Though the 2nd respondent by order dated 26.06.2007 directed the 3rd respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment, in the interregnum one third party filed W.P.(C) No. 23692 of 2007 staking a claim under Rule 43 of KER to the post occupied by the petitioner. When the writ petition was dismissed on 23.06.2011, the said person preferred W.A. No. 962 of 2011 which also was dismissed through Ext.P3 judgment, dated 29.08.2014.
W.P.(C.) No. 31725/2014 -2-
3. In the above factual backdrop, the petitioner is said to have submitted Ext.P6 representation, dated 20.09.2014, before the 3rd respondent for the approval of his post. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the past 8 years, the petitioner has been working without salary. He has further contended that, though as far as the teachers are concerned, approval is a pre-condition for disbursement of salary, there is no such stipulation as far as the clerk are concerned. This statement has been disputed by the learned Government Pleader.
Be that as it may, 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 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P6 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as W.P.(C.) No. 31725/2014 -3-
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv