The court ruled that the competent authority must consider pending petitions for appointment approval based on specified legal guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The 1^st petitioner was appointed as UPSA on 01.06.2010 in an additional division vacancy available at the 5^th respondent’s School. The 2^nd petitioner was was promoted as HSA in an additional division vacancy. The grievance of the petitioners is that their appointments were approved only with effect from 01.06.2011. The prior period of service rendered by the petitioners were not approved by the Department so far.

2. The Government, based on G.O.(P)

No.199/2011/G.Edn. dated 01.10.2011, introduced the Teachers’ Package, whereby appointments of the Teachers made against additional division vacancies were directed to be approved with effect from 01.06.2011. Accordingly, the petitioners’ appointments were approved from 01.06.2011.

3. This Court has already declared the law that even though the Manager has not included the bond in terms of G.O(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, the Department can very well approve the appointment deeming that the Manager has executed the bond. The petitioners have preferred Exts.P3 and P4 Revision Petitions before the 1^st respondent seeking approval of appointment of their prior service, which are pending consideration.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.

5. The petitioners seek to direct respondents 1 to 4 to grant approval of the appointment of the 1^st petitioner as UPSA from 01.06.2010 to 31.05.2011 and to approve appointment of the 2^nd petitioner from 01.06.2010 to

31.05.2011 as HSA.

6. As the petitioners have preferred Exts.P3 and P4 Revision Petitions in this regard invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959, it would be only only appropriate that the competent revisional authority considers the same and passes appropriate orders thereon, on merits.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

1^st respondent to consider Exts.P3 and P4 Revision Petitions and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Sd/-