JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2019 in W.P.(C) No.38875 of 2015. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The first petitioner is the Manager of an aided Upper Primary School. He appointed petitioners 2 and 3 in the school as Upper Primary School Assistants on 04.06.2004 and 07.01.2005 respectively. The Educational Officer declined to approve the appointments of petitioners 2 and 3 on the ground that they were made overlooking the superior claims of two other teachers namely, Smt.K.K.Sathi and Smt.K.Thankamani under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (the Rules), framed under the Kerala Education Act (the Act).

Even though the Manager appointed Smt.K.K.Sathi later on 04.10.2005, Smt.Thankamani was not appointed. Smt.Thankamani, in the circumstances, filed W.P.(C) No.27067 of 2007 before this Court, and in terms of Ext.P1 judgment dated 9.1.2012, this Court directed the Manager to appoint Smt.Thankamani against the vacancy in which the second petitioner was appointed on 04.06.2004. Pursuant to the said judgment, although Smt.Thankamani was appointed on 05.12.2012 as directed by this Court, the Educational Officer approved her appointment only notionally till 22.01.2013, the date on which she had joined duty.

3. After the appointment of Smt.Thankamani, the Manager preferred Exts.P6 and P7 representations before the Educational Officer seeking orders to rearrange the appointments of petitioners 2 and 3 with effect from 04.06.2004 and 07.01.2005 respectively. Those representations were rejected as per Exts.P8 and P9 orders on the ground that there were no vacancies on those dates. Petitioners 2 and 3 challenged Exts.P8 and P9 orders before the Government in revision petitions under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the Rules. In terms of Ext.P13 order, the Government disposed of the said revision petitions directing the Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the second petitioner with effect from 04.10.2005. There was no direction in the said order in respect of the third petitioner as there were only three vacancies in toto for making the rearrangement and all the three vacancies would be filled up with the appointment of the second petitioner. The writ petition was filed thereupon challenging Exts.P8, P9 and P13 orders. The petitioners have also sought a direction to the Government to direct the Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the second petitioner from 04.06.2004 to 04.10.2005 and the appointment of the third petitioner from 07.01.2005 to 01.06.2010 for payment of salary, as they had worked in the school during the relevant periods.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Educational Officer contending, among others, that petitioners 2 and 3 are not entitled to salary for the period during which they worked in the school pursuant to the appointments which were not approved.

5. The learned Single Judge found that since the appointment of Smt.Thankamani was approved only notionally upto the date of joining viz, 22.01.2013, the second petitioner who was working in the school from 04.06.2004 to 04.10.2005 in the vacancy in which Smt.Thankamani was appointed is entitled to salary for the said period. As regards the claim of the third petitioner for salary for the period from 07.01.2005 to 01.06.2010 on the sole basis that she had worked in the school during the said period, the learned Single Judge took the view that the same is one to be considered by the Educational Officer. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of declaring that the second petitioner is entitled to get her appointment approved for the period from 04.06.2004 to 04.10.2005 for the purpose of payment of salary, and directing the respondents to pass consequential orders granting salary to the second petitioner for the said peri