The court directed the consideration of representations for approval of appointments of Aided School Teachers based on lifting a prior ban.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 The petitioners are Aided School Teachers working in various Schools coming under the management of Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Idukki.

2. Their original appointment was during the ban period against additional division vacancies available in their respective Schools and there were restrictions as part of economy measures as per G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. But, later Government lifted the ban as per Ext.P7 G.O.(P) No.10/2010/G.Edn. and directed approval for the said period on condition that the Managers of the School have to execute a bond in terms of the said Government Order undertaking that the Managers will appoint equal number of protected Teachers as against the appointments made during the said period.

3. Since the 6^th respondent-Corporate Manager has not executed a bond in terms of Ext.P7, the petitioners’ approval from initial date of appointment is not so far granted. The petitioners were shifted to undisputed vacancies after the initial appointment and they got approval. However, the appointments of all the petitioners during the ban period remain unapproved.

4. The petitioners submit that despite the issuance of Ext.P7 Government Order lifting the ban and directing approval of appointments, similarly situated Aided School Teachers were unable to avail the benefit of Ext.P7. Their appointments continued to remain unapproved on account of the non-execution of the bond by the Manager, as mandated under the terms of Ext.P7 Government Order.

5. In their cases, this Court including the Division Bench interfered and directed approval of appointments as per Ext.P7 notwithstanding the fact that the Manager has not executed a bond in terms of Ext.P7. Reliance is placed on Ext.P14. Government implemented the said judgments which include the Teachers working in the very same management.

6. The petitioners are also similarly situated Teachers as in the case of the petitioners in Ext.P14 judgment. Since their service is not approved during the ban period despite lifting of the ban as per Ext.P7, the petitioners seek approval from date of appointment, as directed in the above mentioned judgments. They have approached the Government by Exts.P8 to P13 representations, which are pending consideration.

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

8. The petitioners would urge that it is only because of the ban imposed by the Government that the approval was denied to the appointment of the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to get approval with effect from the date of appointment as per the law laid down by this Court in Ext.P14 judgment.

9. Be that as it may, from the pleadings, I find that the petitioners have preferred Exts.P8 to P13 representations in this regard before the 1^st respondent. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that it would be sufficient if the 1^st respondent considers the representation, at least at the first instance.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

1^st respondent to consider Exts.P8 to P13 representations and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months taking note of Ext.P14 judgment and deeming that the Managers have executed the bond.

Sd/-