The appointment of teachers in aided schools requires reconsideration for pay approval based on established vacancies and compliance with relevant government orders.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Aggrieved by the denial of approval for scale of pay from the date of appointment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 4^th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Hindi) with effect from 26.08.2009 to 31.05.2011 in the scale of pay and to disburse consequential monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Hindi) in SMM Higher Secondary School, Rayirimangalam with effect from 26.08.2009 as per Ext.P1 order. The approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the 4^th respondent-DEO stating that the Manager did not submit the bond to grant approval and that there is no approved Manager.

3. The petitioner states that there were anticipated posts during the academic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, as per the original Staff Fixation Orders. But, the posts were not sanctioned due to the ban on creation of additional Division imposed as per Government Order dated 17.08.2005. Later, the ban was lifted as per Government Order dated 12.01.2010. Yet, the petitioner's appointment was not approved on the ground that the 5^th respondent- Manager failed to execute a bond in terms of GO(P)

No.10/10.

4. While so, as per GO(P) dated 01.10.2011, a Teachers package was introduced. Thereupon, the 2^nd respondent-Director of General Education directed the 4^th respondent to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.2011.

5. The petitioner states that in similar cases, the Government has granted approval to the appointment of similarly situated Teachers deeming that the Manager has executed the bond in terms of GO(P) dated 12.01.2010. However, the revision petition filed by the petitioner claiming similar relief was rejected as per Ext.P4.

6. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C)

No.2236/2022 and this Court set aside Ext.P4 order and directed the Government to reconsider the revision petition as per Ext.P5. The Government thereupon issued Ext.P6 order approving the appointment of the petitioner from 26.08.2009 to 01.06.2010 on daily wages and from

01.06.2010 onwards in the scale of pay.

7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said Ext.P6 order dated 25.03.2024. The petitioner submits that since the vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed was in existence and was of a duration of more than one academic year, the initial appointment of the petitioner is liable to be approved in the scale of pay.

8. The 4^th respondent filed a counter affidavit.

The 4^th respondent submitted that the Government considered the revision petition filed by the petitioner and declined the claim for approval from the date of appointment on the ground that the Manager has approached the Apex Court challenging GO(P) dated 12.01.2010. Since the Government by GO(P) dated 24.03.2024 directed to approve the appointment from 26.08.2009 to 31.05.2010 on daily wages, the petitioner is not eligible for getting the appointment approved in scale of pay.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

10. The petitioner has been working as HSA (Hindi) since 26.08.2009. The appointment of the petitioner from 26.08.2009 to 01.06.2010 was not approved in the scale of pay. The petitioner was granted salary on daily wage basis only. The aforesaid duration is of more than one academic year.

11. In State of Kerala v. Senha Cheriyan [2013 (1) KLT 755 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Manager of an Aided School can appoint Teachers in vacancies occurred due to death, retirement, promotion, resignation, long term leave, etc. provided they are estab