Court finds that prior fitness certificates were overlooked in appointment approval, thereby necessitating reconsideration of the decision.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the St. Francis UP School, Amballoor, Ernakulam District on 05.06.2006 against an additional division vacancy. The appointment of the petitioner was not approved initially. Later, after Ext.P4 Government Order, the 4^th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P5 order dated 30.12.2019, whereby the petitioner’s appointment was approved with effect from 05.06.2006 to 31.05.2011. The Manager of the School submitted that approval to the appointment of the petitioner needs to be granted only from 05.06.2006 to 31.05.2009. 2. Perhaps on the basis of the communication of the Manager, Director of General Education issued Ext.P8 cancelling Ext.P5 approval and granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 04.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. The petitioner is aggrieved by the approval granted from 04.06.2007. According to the petitioner, approval ought to have been granted with effect from 05.06.2006.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit. The respondents stated that the 2^nd respondent had issued Ext.P8 dated 01.10.2022 ordering to revise granting of approval from 04.06.2007 to 31.05.2009 instead of 05.06.2006 to 31.05.2009 for the reason that the accommodation considered for Staff Fixation for 2006-2007 includes a new School building having six class rooms, which has got Fitness Certificate from 03.11.2006 only.

4. In Ext.P8 order, the respondents noted that when the Assistant Educational Officer issued revised Staff Fixation order dated 12.08.2010, the 2^nd respondent considered the new six accommodations, which has got fitness only on 03.11.2006 for revision of Staff Fixation 2006-2007. However, this new six accommodation has not been considered for Staff Fixation for 2006-2007. Hence, the Assistant Educational Officer revised the approval and granted only from

04.06.2007. The 1^st respondent has issued Ext.P10 order rejecting the request of the petitioner for approval from 05.06.2006 due to the reason that the accommodation considered for Staff Fixation 2006-2007 includes a new School building having six class rooms, which has got Fitness Certificate only from 03.11.2006.

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

6. From the pleadings in the writ petition and perusing the impugned orders, I find that the approval for appointment to the petitioner with effect from 05.06.2006 has not been granted on the premise that Fitness Certificate certifying sufficient accommodation was not available in the academic year 2005-2006. Ext.P12 Staff Fixation order would indicate that in the year 2004-2005, there were 15 class rooms and in the year 2005-2006, there were 19 class rooms. Ext.P15 Fitness Certificate would indicate that six additional class rooms were constructed and were inspected on 23.05.2005 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D Building, Sub Division, Ernakulam. The petitioner would submit that the School constructed six more additional class rooms on the first floor of an existing building, which was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 03.11.2006.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that after taking note of Ext.P17 Fitness Certificate issued after making an inspection on 03.11.2006 and treating the same as relevant for the academic year 2006-2007, the authorities came to a conclusion that there are no sufficient class rooms for the year 2005-2006. Had the authorities adverted to Ext.P15 Fitness Certificate in respect of six additional class rooms, for which already Fitness Certificate was issued,