JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the Manager of the R. G. Memorial AUP School, Malappattam. He challenges Exts.P6 and P7 orders directing appointment of the 5th respondent as a full-time language teacher in the retirement vacancy of one Smt. N.K.

Vimala Kumari.

2. Petitioner had appointed Smt.Babitha B, the 6th respondent as Hindi Teacher on 06.06.2019 by Ext.P1 order. However, the 4th respondent by Ext.P2 order declined to grant approval of the said appointment, alleging that the claim of 5th respondent under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of KER had not been considered. In the meantime, the 5th respondent had preferred a complaint before the Assistant Educational Officer. By order dated 10.01.2020, produced as Ext.P6, the AEO directed the claim of 5th respondent to be considered for promotion to the retirement vacancy of Smt. N.K. Vimala Kumari. Alleging that the orders of AEO have not been implemented by the petitioner, the 5th respondent Sri. Habeebullah K., approached the 3rd respondent who, by order dated 09.07.2020 (Ext.P7), directed the petitioner to initiate appropriate action to appoint the eligible person to the post of Hindi language teacher. Aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 directions issued by the 3rd and 4th respondents the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Petitioner pleaded that a part-time Urdu teacher was not a feeder category for other full-time language teachers post to seek a claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of KER. Though there were various other claims put-forth by the petitioner, due to the events that transpired during the pendancy of this writ petition, this Court need not go into the details of the merits of such contentions raised.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. C. Murali Krishnan, submitted that the 5th respondent had during the pendency of this writ petition, submitted a letter to the petitioner stating that he has voluntarily relinquished his claim for appointment to the post of full-time Hindi teacher and that he had no objection in the 6th respondent being appointed to the said post.

5. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the 4th respondent has received the said relinquishment letter submitted by the 5th respondent to the petitioner.

6. In view of the aforesaid relinquishment letter submitted by the 5th respondent, stating that he is withdrawing his claim under Rule 43 to the post of full-time Hindi teacher in the petitioner's school, I am of the view that the merits of the writ petition need not be considered and, on the other hand Exts.P6 and P7 can be set aside to enable the respondents 3 and

4 to act upon the relinquishment letter.

Accordingly, I set aside Ext. P6 and Ext.P7 and direct the

4th respondent to consider the application for approval of the appointment of the 6th respondent to the post of full-time Hindi teacher in the petitioner's school afresh notwithstanding Ext.P2, based upon the relinquishment letters Ext.P15 and Ext.P16 submitted by the 5th respondent. Needfull shall be done after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Dxy

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18123/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT BABITHA B 6TH RESPONDENT (DATED

06.06.2019)

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G/5225/2019 DATED 06.01.2020 OF 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED

29.01.2020 ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO. D/4889/2018 DATED 02.07.2018 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO. G/44204/2019 DATED 17.07.2019 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020 ISSUED BY

4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER