The court reaffirmed the staff pattern's applicability is prospective only, impacting appointment approvals not in compliance with prior ratios.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.34070 of 2017 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant is working as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in the school of the 5^th Respondent with effect from 01.06.2009. By Ext.P1 proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 17.08.2011, a post was sanctioned during the academic year 2009-10. By Ext.P2 order dated 03.07.2014 of the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, she is deployed as cluster co-ordinator in the BRC under SSA. The appellant’s appointment was approved only on 21-11-2012. The Manager has filed a revision petition before the Government seeking approval of the appointment of the appellant with effect from 15.07.2010 in the 1:40 ratio in the existing post, evident from Ext.P4 revision petition dated 12.03.2014 submitted by the Manager before the Government. By Ext.P5 letter dated 16.09.2015, the Government has rejected the revision petition without assigning any reasons. Ext.P6 Government Order dated 22.09.2010 in terms provides for retention of 1:40 ratio during the academic year 2010-11. Ext.P7 is the staff fixation orders of the year 2011-12 to 2015-16, which shows that there is a sanctioned post of UPSA in the school. Ext.P8 is the representation dated 23.02.2016 submitted by the appellant before the Government, which was forwarded to the 3^rd respondent for taking action in terms of G.O.(P)29/2016, as evident from Ext.P9 letter dated 25.02.2016. That is pending before the 3^rd respondent. By Ext.P10 proceedings dated 05.04.2017 of the 4^th respondent, the appellant is retained in the parent school. Now the 3^rd respondent has passed Ext.P11 order dated 22.09.2017 by which the request for approval from 15.07.2010 is turned down. Ext.P12 is the Government order dated 29.01.2016. With these pleadings, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.34070 of 2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P5, P9 and Ext.P11 and quash the same.

ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 15.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 and to grant all service benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

iii) To declare that the delay in approving the appointment will not take away the right to the petitioner to get approval of the appointment on the basis of the Government orders prevailing at the relevant academic years”.

3. In the writ petition, the 4^th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 27.03.2019 opposing the reliefs sought for.

Paragraphs 5 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus:

“5. It is submitted that as per the staff fixation order 2010- 11 three divisions were reduced, 2 posts in UP and 1 post in LP. This order was modified and one UPSA was retained in 1:40 ratio. The Manager has appointed the petitioner in an anticipated additional post for the year 2009-10. There were restrictions from the part of Government for creating new additional posts during 2009-10. As per the G.O No.10/10 dated 02.01.2010, the Government has lifted the ban on the approval of the appointment in additional post with the condition that the Manager has submitting a bond for the approval of appointment. Here the Manager submitting the bond on 16.06.2011 that is after the staff fixation order for the year 2010-11.

6. It is respectfully submitted