Government must consider pending representations and existing vacancies when approving appointments.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPSA at the 4^th respondent’s School on 01.06.2016 in an additional division vacancy. The Corporate Management has five Schools. Approval of appointment of Teachers are based on seniority. After conducting an Adalat and after hearing affected Teachers and controlling officers, a comprehensive Government Order was issued, which is Ext.P2.

2. The petitioner states that in Ext.P2, it was ordered to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2016 onwards. However, later the 3^rd respondent took a stand that there was no established vacancy as on the date of the appointment of the petitioner. The vacancy in question has to be given to the 5^th respondent.

3. The petitioner was promoted as HSST (Junior)

by-transfer on 15.07.2021. The said by-transfer appointment was also not approved for the reason that the petitioner’s appointment as UPSA was not approved by the Department. Later, the Manager appointed the petitioner as HSST (Junior) (Zoology) as per Ext.P3 order, by direct recruitment. The said appointment was approved as per Ext.P4.

4. The petitioner states that the Government considered the issue and Ext.P5 Government Order was passed contravening Ext.P2 decision. By Ext.P5, it is ordered to approve the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA from 01.07.2019 onwards. The petitioner is challenging the said Government Order. While the Government was considering the issue, by Ext.P6, approval was granted to one Unni G. Kannan. Therefore, there arose a vacancy with effect from 01.06.2016 onwards. The petitioner’s case could have been considered against the said vacancy.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.

6. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that while considering the case of the petitioner and issuing Ext.P5, the Government has omitted to consider the existence of a vacancy from the year 2016 onwards. Had that been considered, the petitioner could have been appointed with effect from the due date of her entitlement.

7. Be that as it may, from the pleadings I find that pointing out these aspects, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 representation before the 1^st respondent.

8. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that it is necessary that the 1^st respondent considers Ext.P9 and passes appropriate orders thereon.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

1^st respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to respondents 4 and 5.