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 school under the management of the petitioner was granted Higher Secondary course in the year 2000 with three batches - two in Science and one in Humanities. Subsequently, during the academic year 2011-12 a batch of Commerce was also sanctioned. According to the petitioner, beginning from the academic year 2012-13 there exist fifty six periods per week for English in the school but it has only two sanctioned posts in Higher Secondary School Teacher (English).
WPC 31017/14 2
3. Seeking sanction of additional posts, the petitioner is said to have made Exhibit P4 representation before the second respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that it is the first respondent Government which is the appropriate authority to take a decision in this regard and Exhibit P4, on the face of it, reveals that at the time of submitting the representation before the second respondent, a copy thereof seems to have been forwarded to the first respondent as well.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P4 representation of the petitioner, if it is WPC 31017/14 3 received and pending, in accordance with law 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.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv