Approval of appointments must consider compliance with established regulations and timely adjudication of pending petitions.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner being the seniormost Rule 51A claimant was appointed as UPST in a substantive vacancy arisen on promotion of incumbent as HST (English) on 09.10.2023. The approval sought for was rejected on account of non-production of certain documents and on the ground of reservation for PwD by Ext.P2.

2. The petitioner as well as the Corporate Manager filed Exts.P3 and P4 appeals respectively, before the 3^rd respondent which is pending consideration for months together. She is working without salary since her date of appointment. The Government, by Ext.P6 Circular, frowned upon the practice of rejecting the approval sought for on the ground of PwD reservation and on flimsy grounds. The reservation for PwD was scrupulously complied with and the defects enumerated in Ext.P2 were cured by producing the documents before the Appellate Authority.

3. Consequent to the direction of this Court, the 3^rd respondent decided on Exts.P3 and P4 appeals by confirming non-approval of appointment of the petitioner for the reason, after dispelling all other reasons in Ext.P2, that the 7^th respondent in whose vacancy the petitioner was accommodated on his promotion as HST (English), was not approved by Ext.P9. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 in revision before the Government by Ext.P10 which is still pending consideration. The 7^th respondent has never got approval of the appointment as UPST and hence his promotion as HST (English) can only be reckoned as by- transfer appointment which has no bearing upon the approval of appointment of the petitioner.

4. The 7^th respondent was appointed as UPST on promotion of the 6^th respondent as HST (Physical Science), who is having on her credit approval of appointment as UPST. The promotion of 6^th respondent as HST (Physical Science) was rejected by Ext.P11 was allowed by Ext.P12 with direction to the 4^th respondent to approve the promotion of the 5^th respondent on production of seniority list by the Corporate Educational Agency. The Corporate Educational Agency produced a declaration as contemplated in Ext.P13 Government Order that there is no claimant in the category of the Protected Teachers as well as Rule 43 and Rule 51A claimants in all the 26 Schools under the Management. Ext.P13 provides for accepting the declaration in lieu of seniority list so far as Corporate Educational Agencies are concerned. The 4^th respondent is insisting on seniority list for passing consequential order of approval which is per-se illegal and improper.

5. The petitioner is entitled for approval of her appointment only on approval of promotion of the 6^th respondent. The consideration of her Ext.P10 revision would serve the purpose only in the event of approval of promotion of the 7^th respondent being allowed. Hence, the petitioner seeks direction to the 4^th respondent within a time frame to pass consequential order in pursuance to Ext.P12 approving the promotion of the 6^th respondent as HST (Physical Science) by accepting the declaration in terms of Ext.P13 in lieu of seniority list and in pursuance to thereof consider Ext.P10 revision petition by the 1^st respondent for approving the appointment of the petitioner as UPST after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 7 within a further period of one month from the date of passing of consequential order by 4^th respondent.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent.

7. The petitioner would contend that at the insistence of the 4^th respondent to produce the sen