Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, 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, an HSA (English), claims appointment to the post of HSST (English) by transfer under 25% quota on the ground that he is the senior most teacher in the school. When his claim was not considered, he is said to have made a representation to the 3rd respondent Manager. Later, having failed to get any positive orders, he submitted Exts.P5 and P6 representations before the 2nd respondent. So far, no orders seem to have been passed in response to those representations. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is said to have filed Ext.P8 representation before the 1st respondent.
W.P.(C) No.7143/2014 -2-
3. The 4th respondent, who is the rival claimant, is also said to have filed an application concerning the appointment as HSST through direct recruitment before the 1st respondent. Since the claim of the 4th respondent as well as that of the petitioner herein is finally to be determined by the 1st respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the rival claims of the petitioner and the 4th respondent in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation along with that of the 4th respondent, if the same is pending before the authority, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd and W.P.(C) No.7143/2014 -3-
4th respondents 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. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv