AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 276 wordsC.S.Dias, J
This writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 within a time frame.
The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that she is working as a Higher Secondary School Teacher in a school managed by the 4th
respondent. Ext.P1 is the appointment of the petitioner as HSST Malayalam. The 4th respondent had on 10.6.2019 submitted an application to the 3rd
respondent for the approval of the petitioner's appointment. Nevertheless, the 3rd respondent prolonged the matter for more than two years on flimsy
grounds. Finally, the 3rd respondent rejected the proposal by Ext.P2. The 4th respondent again resubmitted the proposal, which was again rejected by
the 3rd respondent by Ext.P3. The petitioner is retiring from service on 31.5.2021 and has not been paid her salary since 31.12.2020. In the said
situation, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent, requesting to approve her appointment. Hence, the writ
petition.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. In view of the
limited relief that, I propose to pass, I have dispensed with notice to the 4th respondent.
Taking into consideration the fact that Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, without
expressing anything on merits on the matter, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation, in accordance with law, and dispose of the
same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.