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 with effect from 03.06.2013 in a promotional vacancy in a school under the management of the 4th respondent. When the 4th respondent forwarded the proposal to have the appointment of the petitioner approved, the 3rd respondent did not pass any orders. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision before the 2nd respondent, apart from filing Ext.P8 revision before the first respondent. Complaining of the delay in considering Ext.P7 revision by the 2nd respondent, W.P.(C.) No. 33265/2014 -2-
the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, 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.P7 revision petition in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No. 33265/2014 -3-