1. In W.P.(C)No.28577/08, the petitioner who was appointed as HSA(Mathematics) in the school managed by the 5th respondent is seeking for a direction to approve her appointment from the date of appointment itself. She was appointed as HAS (Mathematics) from 18.11.2005. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29086/08 is seeking the very same relief, who is working as HSA(Natural Science), in the very same school managed by the 5th respondent. She was appointed from 29.7.2005. Very same grounds are taken to reject the approval of appointment of both the petitioners.

2. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the appointments of both the petitioners were approved with effect from 1.6.2010. Therefore, what remains now is the consideration of the prayer to approve the appointments of the petitioners from the date of appointment itself.

3. The consistent stand taken in the impugned orders is that being a newly opened school, vacancies should be filled up by protected hands and that Manager has not appointed a protected hand.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Manager.

5. That the petitioners were qualified and there were regular vacancies is not disputed. In the order passed by the Government as Exhibit P4 produced in W.P.(C)No.28577/08, one of the points raised is that as per G.O.(P)No.46/2006/G.Edn. dated 1.2.2006 in those schools started or upgraded during the period 1979-90, the Manager should appoint at least one protected teacher in the school. But no protected teachers were working in the school at the time of appointment of the petitioner. The date 1.6.2010 now chosen for granting approval is the date on which a protected hand was appointed.

6. Therefore, the question is whether once the Manager has appointed a protected hand in terms of Rule 6(viii) of Chapter V KER and the Government Orders emphasising the obligation of the Manager in that regard, the approval can be postponed till the date on which the protected hand is appointed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Exhibit P10 Government Order, Exhibit P11 Circular and judgments of this Court in Exhibits P12 to P15 as well as Exhibit P7 produced in W.P.(C)No.28577/08 to contend for the position that after Exhibit P10 Government Order was issued, the Department had an obligation to communicate the list of protected teachers to the Manager and in the absence of the same, the Manager cannot be found fault with for non-appointment and consequently, the appointment of the teacher cannot be objected for that reason and there cannot be refusal to approve the appointment.

8. The obligation of the Manager to appoint a protected teacher is obviously one arising under Rule 6(viii) of Chapter V KER. Herein the school was established in 1982 and the obligation is in respect of schools started from the year 1979. After the scheme of appointment of protected hands was adopted, there were different Government Orders insisting for appointment of protected teachers as well as relaxing the said conditions during different academic years. At a time when the number of protected hands came down, the Government issued G.O.(MS)No.123/91/G.Edn. dated 5.8.1991 relaxing the conditions. Therein the Managers were permitted to make fresh appointments in the posts of LPSA, UPSA and HSA(Core Subjects). It was also provided therein that the condition regarding execution of agreement in stamp paper will not be insisted so far as the approval of appointments of fresh hands in categories of LPSA, UPSA and HSA (Core Subjects)are concerned. Later even though another Government Order G.O.(MS) No.347/98/G.Edn. dated 1.9.1998 was issued after noticing that the number protected teachers has increased, the same was kept in abeyance by issuing G.O.(Rt) No.585/99/G.Edn. dated 4.2.1999. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that such relaxation was made by the Governme