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 on 24.08.2011 as HSST in a vacancy to be created in the school of the 4th respondent. When the management sought the approval of the petitioner's appointment, the 3rd respondent returned the proposal with a direction to re-submit it as and when the post was created. Later, in course of time, the 2nd respondent forwarded a proposal to the 1st respondent recommending creation of post in the 4th respondent's school. This recommendation is said to be based on the pupil- strength and also the number of batches for the years 2011-
2012. Eventually, the 1st respondent, acting on the proposal of the 2nd respondent, issued Ext.P1 order creating certain posts in the 4th respondent's school. It appears from Ext.P1 that though posts were created in other disciplines, Economics stood excluded. Aggrieved thereby, the 4th respondent management filed Ext.P2 statutory appeal on 26.07.2013 before the 1st respondent. Having waited for some time, the 4th respondent is said to have submitted Ext.P3 reminder to the Hon'ble Minister concerned.
3. Since the 1st respondent has not considered Ext.P2 statutory appeal, the petitioner, taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, submitted an application seeking to know the status of the statutory appeal. In that context, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 reply stating that a decision is awaited from the Government and as and when the 1st respondent disposes of Ext.P2 appeal, the authorities would be taken further steps. Once again, seeking an early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal, the 4th respondent is said to have submitted Ext.P5 representation to the 1st respond nt. Complaining of non disposal of Ext.P2 appeal despite Exts.P3 and P5 reminders by the 4th responednt managem nt, the petitioner approached this Court.
4. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that since the 1st respondent has actively been seized of Ext.P2 statutory appeal, it may not be necessary at this juncture for this Court to adjudicate the issue on merits. He has further submitted that if the statutory appeal has already been received and pending, the 1st respondent authorities would be making every effort to dispose it of at the earliest.
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, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 statutory appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, 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. If desired, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent authorities. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv