AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
Shri M.S. Parthasarathi, Learned Counsel seeks to enter appearance for respondent No. 7. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Notice to respondent No. 6 is dispensed with.
It is the petitioner''s case that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Hindi on 01.06.1987 in the Institution run by the sixth respondent under the category of Scheduled Tribe candidate. The appointment was approved by the Department with salary grant as on 26.12.1987. The respondent No. 6 being a private Aided Educational Institution and the petitioner having completed twenty years of service as an Assistant Teacher, the petitioner''s name was forwarded to the third respondent for extension of the benefit of pay scale of Grade-I teacher and it was extended by considering his qualification and length of service, but the sixth respondent is said to have passed a resolution through its Managing Committee and recommended the name of the seventh respondent for promotion as Head Master. Inspite of objections having been filed by the petitioner and the fourth respondent having approved the proposal sent by the Managing Committee had fixed the pay scale of the seventh respondent as Head Master by order dated 19.09.2009, with effect from 24.08.2009. The petitioner had promptly challenged the same by way of an appeal before the second respondent, who in turn, had passed an order dated 13.09.2011, with a direction to prepare the seniority list and promote the appropriate candidate by following the roster. In compliance with the order, the petitioner was relieved and promoted to the post of Head Master and it is the petitioner''s case that the orders stood implemented as on 19.10.2011. However, the seventh respondent had filed a revision petition in Revision Petition No. 64/2011 as on 20.10.2011 and an exparte interim order of stay of such appointment of the petitioner has been granted and inspite of the interim order having become in fructuous, in that, the petitioner was already appointed on 19.10.2011 and the petitioner having thus approached the first respondent with necessary documents to establish this circumstance, it transpires that the interim order granted earlier was extended, inspite of the petitioner bringing it to the attention of the first respondent of the present circumstance. It is this which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Since the matter is at large before the first respondent, it is appropriate that the petitioner''s case be considered by the first respondent and the interim order granted by the first respondent be reconsidered in the light of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove.
Therefore, the only grievance of the petitioner being that he has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing while extending the interim order granted on 29.10.2011, the first respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the extension of the interim order in the light of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, which process shall he expedited and the petitioner shall be heard after notice to respondent No. 6 and other concerned respondents and respondent No. 7, as well.
It is also brought to the attention of this Court that though the matter was listed on 05.11.2011 before the first respondent the interim order granted earlier has not been extended, but however, it is the apprehension of the petitioner that the same would be extended at the next date of hearing. Since the first respondent was not present as on 05.11.2011 and therefore, seeks that the hearing be expedited. Since no further date has been fixed, the parties shall appear before the first respondent on 21.11.2011.
The Petition stands disposed of accordingly.