The court found that the government's actions regarding the approval of the teacher's appointment did not adhere to the G.O.(P)No.4/2021 mandate.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who was appointed as LPST (Lower Primary School Teacher) in the school managed by the 4^th respondent herein w.e.f. 01.06.2017, was required to be shifted to a retirement vacancy in the year 2019 since the original appointment was against an additional post. The subsequent appointment against the regular vacancy was w.e.f. 06.06.2019. There is no dispute with reference to the petitioner's service from 06.06.2019 onwards. However, the petitioner sought for notional benefits from 01.06.2017 till such time she was appointed to the regular vacancy as noticed above, with reference to the mandate under the G.O.(P)No.4/2021 dated 06.02.2021. Originally the petitioner's appointment in the additional post was also resubmitted by the manager for approval, and that was also approved by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO). Later, it appears that steps are being taken for withdrawing the approval as above, as evidenced by the proceedings at Ext.P4 – audit objection, which is also seen confirmed by the Government at Ext.P10. It is seeking to challenge the afore that the petitioner is before this Court .

2. I have heard Smt. P.A. Jenzia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Shylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. This Court notices with reference to the averments in the counter affidavit filed by 3^rd respondent that there is no dispute as regards the manager seeking approval for the original appointment in the additional post from 2017 onwards, as also the fact that the AEO approved the afore appointment. With reference to the mandate of the aforementioned Government Order, such approval is only having a notional benefit to the petitioner.

4. In the light of the afore, the audit objection at Ext.P4 does not appear to be correct. The consideration made by the Government in the impugned order at Ext.P10 also does not appear to be correct, insofar as the mandate under the G.O. (P)No.4/2021 has not been considered in its true spirit.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, the writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P4 as well as Ext.P10.

Sd/-