AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash Ext. P4(a) to (o)
ii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 5th respondent to approve the appointment of the LPSAs and UPSAs made by the petitioners in Ext. P3(a) to (n)
iii) Grant such other further reliefs as this Hon''ble Court may deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
When the matter is taken up for consideration the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents points out that Ext. P2 G.O. dated 6/8/2012 is intended to cater to a different situation, which in no way does come to the rescue of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioners, if aggrieved, can very well approach the Government filing a revision petitioner under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner would like to pursue such remedy by way of Rule 92.
In the above circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of, reserving the rights and liberties of the petitioner to approach the Government filing a revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER. If any such revision petition is filed within ''two weeks'' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to any of the representatives of the petitioners herein, at the earliest, at any rate, within ''three months'' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.