In this case, the petitioner was appointed as an LG (Hindi) Teacher in a leave vacancy at St. Stephen's High School, Pathanapuram, which is under the management of the 4th respondent. The petitioner was initially appointed during the spells of 23.10.2000 to 21.12.2000 and 17.07.2001 to 19.09.2001. When a regular vacancy arose, the petitioner was appointed from 06.06.2002 onwards. However, the District Education Officer (the third respondent) declined to approve the appointment, citing a lack of established vacancy due to a reduction in posts during the 2002-03 staff fixation. The petitioner challenged the refusal to grant approval for the period from 06.06.2002 to 2004. The Manager of the school appealed the decision to the Director of Public Instructions (the second respondent), who ordered approval of the appointment from 2004-05 onwards. Dissatisfied with the refusal to grant approval for the earlier period, the petitioner approached the Government in revision, but the request was rejected. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which directed the Government to reconsider the matter. The court found that the authorities had concurrently determined that the total number of periods available for Hindi during the 2002-03 and 2003-04 periods was 54 in the UP Section and 81 in the HS Section. Applying the relevant rule in the Kerala Education Rules (KER), the court found that the school was eligible for two LG (Hindi) posts and three HSA (Hindi) posts, with 10 leftover periods. The court noted that under KER Rule 6F(ii)(d), if the leftover periods in the High School and Upper Primary sections are less than 25, a full-time post in the High School Section may be sanctioned if the number of leftover periods in that section is not less than 4 for subjects like Hindi. Since the petitioner did not possess the required qualification to be an HSA (Hindi), the authorities were justified in declining to approve the petitioner's appointment as an LG (Hindi) Teacher. However, the court observed that the Government is vested with the power under KER Chapter I Rule 3 to dispense with or relax the requirements of a rule to avoid undue hardship in a particular case. The court found that the petitioner had been working since her appointment, no teacher was appointed to the post of HSA (Hindi), and no financial burden would result from approving the petitioner's appointment. The court, therefore, directed the first respondent (the Government) to consider the petitioner's request for approval/regularization of her appointment from 06.06.2002 onwards under the provisions of KER Chapter I Rule 3. The court upheld the reason given in the Ext.P13 order for declining to approve the petitioner's appointment as an LG (Hindi) Teacher, as it was in accordance with the relevant KER rule. However, the court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's request for approval/regularization of her appointment from 06.06.2002 onwards under the provisions of KER Chapter I Rule 3, which allows the Government to dispense with or relax the requirements of a rule to avoid undue hardship in a particular case.