P. Sam Koshy, J
1. The only grievance, which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition, is that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for the
post of Teacher Panchayat (English), which was conducted in the month of July, 2011. The petitioner's name stood at serial No.75 in the order of
merit and one Ms. M. Lalita was placed at serial No.78 in the same merit list.
2. According to the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act she has got information that 2-3 persons have not given joining inspite of offer of
appointment being made and therefore it was under the said circumstances that the case of Ms. M. Lalita, the candidate whose name appears at
serial No.78, has been granted appointment.
3. According to the petitioner, it was the right of the petitioner to have been considered first or atleast before Ms. M. Lalita was considered. She
submits that she has already made a representation in this regard vide Exhibit P/3 to the respondent No.2 and which till date is pending.
4. Given the aforesaid factual matrix as is evident from the contents of the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if
the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner and while deciding the
representation of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 shall thoroughly verify the entire records, as also the status of the petitioner as compared to Ms.
M. Lalita, who was placed lower in the merit list than the petitioner.
5. After thorough verification of the contents, the respondent No.2 may take an appropriate decision considering the case of the petitioner for grant of
appointment. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 90 days.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed off.
