THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Rev. W.P.M.P. No. 21866 of 2006 and W.P. No. 22075 of 2001 Oral order: Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 22075 of 2001, have filed the review W.P.M.P. seeking to review the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by this Court allowing the writ petition. A perusal of the order dated 14.02.2006, passed in the writ petition shows that when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, there was neither any representation for the respondents nor any counter was filed on their behalf, and in those circumstances, this Court presuming the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition to be true, allowed the writ petition, granting the relief as prayed for by the petitioner therein. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that as his name was not printed in the cause list on 14.02.2006, he did not represent the matter, and in those circumstances, this Court allowed the writ petition, and to prove that his name was not printed in the cause list, he produced a xerox copy thereof. A perusal of the cause list dated 14.02.2006, on which date, this Court allowed the writ petition, shows that the name of the Government Pleader for Higher Education was not printed. Since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not be represented because the name of the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, who was representing them, was not printed in the cause list, I deem it appropriate to allow to allow the review W.P.M.P. and review the order dated 14.02.2006 passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the review W.P.M.P. is allowed. Along with the review petition, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed counter-affidavit, inter alia stating that the petitioner is not entitled for absorption in the regular grant in aid post, for he was appointed after imposition of ban, and that too without prior approval of the competent authority. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education further submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as Attender as he does not possess the qualification of 8th class pass. The learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting that the petitioner does not possess 8th class pass qualification, submitted that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Gardner for which no qualification is required. He further submitted that the petitioner has been working in the college for the last 17 years, and if at this stage, he is thrown out of employment, he would suffer lot of hardship, and submitted that the petitioner be permitted to make a representation to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through respondent No.1-college for regularization of his services as Gardner. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, expressed no objection to the petitioner making representation. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and having regard to the stand taken by them, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate representation through respondent No.1-college for regularization of her services and appointment as Gardner to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and if any such representation is made, then respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services, having regard to the fact that she has been working with respondent No.1- college for the last 17 years, and pass appropriate order, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 26th July, 2007. KSR