The Court directed reconsideration of petitioner’s appointment approval based on prior judicial precedents, addressing procedural delays and ensuring compliance with statutory obligations.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is appointed as UPST towards the vacancy of a UPST promoted as HST. Originally, the approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected stating that the approval of the promotee as HST is pending. The appointment of the promotee as HST with effect from 01.07.2022 has been approved by the 3^rd respondent on 19.01.2024.

2. Though the appointment of the promotee was approved, the Educational Authorities again kept pending the proposal in respect of the petitioner for approval. The 4^th respondent - Manager therefore filed a revision petition before the 1^st respondent seeking to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from

01.07.2022 onwards. The Government, on 27.11.2024, by G.O.(Rt).No.8377/2024/G.Edn, directed the Educational Officer to consider the approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2022 onwards.

3. However, the Educational Officer approved the appointment from 01.07.2022 onwards, only on daily wage basis. The proceedings further stated that the petitioner is not entitled for probation and increments. Granting approval provisionally till a physically disabled person takes charge, is highly illegal and irrational. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered in similar situation by SLP.(C).No.11373/2024 and directed to fill up the vacancies except the seats which are reserved for persons with disability and further to regularise such appointments. Though the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 representation before the 3^rd respondent, the same has not been considered so far, contends Counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

5. The petitioner was appointed as UPST towards the vacancy of UPST promoted as HST. Originally, the approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected stating that the approval of the promottee as HST is pending.

6. The petitioner submits that subsequently, the appointment of the promotte has been approved. Now, there is nothing which prevents the authority from granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as UPST from 01.07.2022. The petitioner states that the respondents have taken a stand that PwD candidates have not been appointed in order to fill up the quota earmarked for them and as long as that is not done, the petitioner's appointment cannot be approved. The petitioner points out that the competent and qualified physically disabled candidates are not available for appointment and this is within the knowledge of the respondents.

7. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration Ext.P6 judgment of the this Court and Ext.P7 order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appointment of the petitioner from 01.07.2022 can be approved on scale of pay basis. Considering the facts of the case and taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be reconsidered.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for approval to her appointment as UPST with effect from 01.07.2022 on scale of pay basis, taking note of Ext.P6 judgment of this Court and Ext.P7 order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Such consideration should be untrammelled by any of the findings in Ext.P5 order dated 09.12.2024. Orders afresh shall be passed within a period of two months.

Sd/-