Government authority has discretion on staff appointment approvals based on staff fixation order, which cannot be retroactively challenged by an employee.

JUDGMENT :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner in WP(MD).No.2326 of 2009 has filed the present writ appeal challenging the disallowed portion of the order of the writ Court.

(A). Factual Matrix:

2.The appellant herein was appointed as a P.G.Assistant (History) in the fifth respondent School on 04.06.2007 in the retirement vacancy of one Mr.P.Balakrishnan Nair. The management has forwarded a proposal to the authority for approval of the said appointment on 12.09.2007. By way of proceedings dated 02.01.2008, the proposal was returned by the authority on the ground that as per staff fixation for the academic year 2007-2008, only one post is sanctioned and the other posts have been rendered surplus. The School had addressed a communication on 08.01.2008 to the authorities seeking for approval again. On 17.03.2008, it was informed that there is no scope for filling up the said post, in view of staff fixation order for the academic year 2007-2008. On 17.03.2008, the authorities had passed an order informing that one post of P.G.Assistant (History) has been surrendered by the fifth respondent School. Aggrieved over the staff fixation order dated 02.01.2008 and the consequential order dated 17.03.2008 wherein the post was surrendered by the management, the appellant herein had filed a writ petition and sought a direction to approve her appointment with effect from 04.06.2007.

3. The respondent authorities had filed a counter contending that the writ petitioner was working in an un-sanctioned post since the post has already been surrendered to the Directorate. They further contended that the students strength had come down and the School is entitled to have only one sanctioned post of P.G.Assistant (History).

4.Pending writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner had filed MP(MD).No.1 of 2012 seeking a direction to the management as against the authorities to approve the appointment of the appellant with effect from 01.06.1999 on the ground that the sole P.G.Assistant (History) was working in the School had retirement on 31.05.2009. The writ Court directed the School Management to send a proposal for approval of the appointment of writ petitioner with effect from 01.06.2009 and directed the authorities to duly consider granting approval to the petitioner's appointment with effect from 01.06.2009. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the order of the writ Court has been complied with and approval has been granted to the writ petitioner's appointment with effect from 01.06.2009. However, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner on the ground that the approval should have been granted with effect from the date of her initial appointment namely 04.06.2007.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the staff fixation order for the year 2005-2006 which was issued on 08.12.2005 clearly reveals that the School is entitled to have two P.G.Assistant (History) teachers as per students strength. The next staff fixation order (impugned in the writ petition) was issued only on 02.01.2008 for the academic year 2007-2008. Even before the impugned staff fixation order was issued, the petitioner was appointed on 04.06.2007. Therefore, citing the staff fixation order for the academic year 2007-2008, the request for approval cannot be rejected.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted t