Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner, who was appointed as Junior Hindi Teacher with effect from 28.06.2006 against an additional post in the school under the management of the 4th respondent, was, however, given approval by the 3rd respondent only from 01.06.2011. The reason assigned by the authority concerned was that the petitioner's appointment took place when the ban was subsisting. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the subsequent statutory developments, the stand of the 3rd respondent is unsustainable.
3. As could be seen from the record, aggrieved by the prospective approval of the petitioner's appointment, she filed Ext.P10 revision before the 2nd respondent, who is yet to decide it. Complaining of non-consideration of Ext.P10 revision petition, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as could be seen from Ext.P2, similarly situated persons were given retrospective approval on earlier occasions.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that since a statutory revision is pending before the 2nd respondent, it may not be necessary to adjudicate the issue on merits at this juncture.
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 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P10 revision petition in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to observe, if the petitioner desires to have an opportunity of being heard in person, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv