TIJO THOMAS Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a Rule 51B claimant, was appointed by the 5th respondent as UPSA with effect from 23.01.2012. But the said appointment was not approved. The rejection of approval has been challenged by the petitioner by filing Ext.P7 Revision Petition before the second respondent under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A KER. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the second respondent to consider Ext. P7 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well.

(2.) CONSIDERING the limited nature of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 5th respondent for the time being. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the 5th respondent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.