Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, 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, being the senior most High School Assistant (Hindi), was eventually promoted as Headmaster by the fifth respondent Manager in a vacancy that arose on 01.04.2013 on the retirement of the incumbent Headmaster. When approval of the appointment was sought, the respondent authorities, however, refused it. It seems althrough the authorities at higher echelons confirmed the order of rejection initially passed by the fourth respondent. Under those circumstances, petitioner filed W.P.(c) No. 29803 of 2014 2 Exhibit P4 revision which is pending before the first respondent. Complaining of delay in disposal of Exhibit P4 revision, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. 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, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P4 revision of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-