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 was appointed as LPSA in the school under the management of the 4th respondent on 1/6/2011 in an additional vacancy. When approval was sought, it was rejected by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P2. In course of time, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 revised staff fixation order. Under those circumstances, aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner is said to have filed Ext.P4 statutory revision before the 2nd respondent, who is yet to dispose it of. Complaining of delay in considering Ext.P4 revision, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.30339/2014 2 submits that in view of the delay in disposing of the revision, the petitioner has been put to prejudice. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has pointed out that the revision itself was filed after two years from the date of Ext.P3.
2. 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 for the respondents, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 statutory revision, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.
dpk /True copy/ P.S. to Judge.
W.P.(C) No.30339/2014 3