Court emphasized timely administrative review of appointment approvals in educational institutions.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a Higher Secondary School Assistant in the school managed by the 4^th respondent herein. He was appointed by the 4^th respondent on 13.08.2010 as HSST. However, the appointment of the petitioner has not been approved by the respondents herein. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court through the captioned writ petition, seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to approve the said appointment.

2. I have heard Sri.P.M. Unni Namboodiri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Dinesh Thankappan, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent – Manager, and Sri. N.B.

Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner was appointed as HSST on

13.08.2010. However, his appointment was approved only with effect from 28.11.2011. Therefore, the petitioner seeks approval from the authorities only for the interregnum period.

4. The 4^th respondent – Manager has already submitted Ext.P12 representation dated 22.12.2025 before the

3^rd respondent herein along with supporting documents seeking approval for the interregnum period.

5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with directions.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to take note of Ext.P12 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent – Manager an opportunity of being heard in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE