Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, apart from perusing the record.
2. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is the Corporate Manager of an Educational Agency, had his appointment approved through Exhibit P1. Being the approved Manager, in course of time, the petitioner appointed one Sr. Jijimol Thomas through Exhibit P2 as Upper Primary School Assistant against a short term leave vacancy. Once again, Sr. Jijimol Thomas was appointed through Exhibit P3 in a long leave vacancy. In fact, the long leave of the incumbent was duly sanctioned by the Government. Under those circumstances, the second round of appointment of Sr. Jijimol Thomas was sought to be made from 01.06.2011 to 31.03.2012.
4. When the petitioner applied for approval of the said appointment made through Exhibit P3, the fourth respondent, however, rejected the approval through Exhibit P5. Though it was appealed against before the third respondent, he too dismissed the appeal through Exhibit P6 on the ground that a senior teacher under the same corporate agency had been waiting for approval and that, pending that, the appointment of a junior teacher could not be approved. Further aggrieved, the petitioner filed Exhibit P7 revision before the second respondent.
5. In the meanwhile, the senior teacher, whose approval had been pending, seems to have approached this Court and eventually a learned Division Bench of this Court, through Exhibit P8 judgment, directed the authorities concerned to approve her appointment. As such, having felt that the impediment that came in the way of the approval of Exhibit P3 appointment had been resolved, the petitioner filed a representation before the second respondent through Exhibit P9, which can be termed as a second revision, though. When the second respondent had not taken up the said revision for consideration, immediately, complaining of time lag, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 26049/2013, which was disposed of by this Court through Exhibit P11 judgment directing the second respondent to consider Exhibits P7 and P9 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Eventually, the second respondent took up Exhibit P7 for consideration and passed Exhibit P10 order, once again rejecting the claim of the petitioner for approval of the appointment made through Exhibit P3. Under those circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, having elaborately addressed on the merits of the matter, eventually brought to the notice of this Court Exhibits P12 and P13 orders. Exhibit P12 is the order passed by the self same second respondent approving the appointment of the senior teacher in compliance with Exhibit P11 judgment. Exhibit P13 is the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent approving the appointment of the said senior teacher. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no legal impediment for approving the appointment made through Exhibit P3 by the authorities concerned, especially, in the light of orders in Exhibits P12 and P13. Accordingly, he urged this Court to issue directions either to the second respondent or to the fourth respondent to reconsider the decision concerning the approval of Exhibit P3 appointment and pass appropriate orders thereon.
7. The learned Government Pleader has, in turn, submitted that Exhibit P10 order was initially passed by the second respondent since, by then, the appointment of the said senior teacher had not been approved. As such the objection raised initially concerning disapproval of Exhibit P3 appointment is without substance. In view of the subsequent developments, the learned Government has fairly stated that the authorities are willing to re-consider the issue of providing approval to Exhibit P3 appointment in the petitioner''s educational agency.
Having regard to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to re-consider Exhibits P7 and P9 and pass orders afresh, especially in the light of Exhibits P8, P12 and P13. Needless to observe that, if any of the parties to the proceedings requests for an opportunity to be heard in person, the same may be considered. It is further observed that in the light of the earlier rounds of litigation, the second respondent shall consider and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the second respondent to process the issue and adjudicate thereupon, the petitioner, if required by the second respondent, has to produce a copy of the writ petition also along with the copy of this judgment.
