Denial of appointment approval from initial dates due to prior vacancies is deemed illegal according to court directives.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2026 The petitioners state that they are working as HST and UPST respectively in HS Karalam.

2. The 1^st petitioner was initially appointed as UPST on 15.07.2005 in an approved regular vacancy. Subsequently, she was promoted as HSA (Social Science) with effect from 02.06.2008 against an anticipated additional division vacancy. However, approval for the said promotion was rejected by the Educational Officer citing a ban on appointments against additional division vacancies. Though Appeals and Revision Petitions were filed, they were not considered. Later, pursuant to G.O. dated 01.10.2011, her appointment was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 under the Teachers’

Package.

3. The 2^nd petitioner was appointed as UPSA on

11.06.2008 against the promotion vacancy arising from the 1^st petitioner’s promotion. Her appointment was not approved from the initial date due to the non-approval of the 1^st petitioner’s promotion. Eventually, her appointment was also approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 in terms of the Teachers’ Package.

4. Though the petitioners are fully qualified and were appointed against sanctioned posts, their services for the period from 02.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 (1^st petitioner) and from 11.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 (2^nd petitioner) have not been approved. The Government, as per G.O. dated 12.01.2010, had lifted the ban on appointments against additional division vacancies and ordered approval of such appointments from the academic year 2005–2006 onwards, subject to certain conditions.

5. Despite repeated representations seeking approval from the initial dates of appointment, no positive action has been taken. The petitioners submitted Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the 1^st respondent on 22.11.2025, which remain pending consideration.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.

7. A Division Bench of this Court has directed that appointments made against additional divisional vacancies during the ban period shall be approved from the actual date of appointment, on the presumption that the Manager has undertaken to appoint Protected Teachers as stipulated in G.O. dated 12.01.2010. It is the case of the petitioners that in such circumstances, the denial of approval to the petitioners’

appointment for the period prior to 01.06.2011 is illegal.

8. Be that as it may, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the 1^st respondent. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 1^st respondent considers Exts.P4 and P5 and passes appropriate orders thereon, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

1^st respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 and pass orders thereon, within a period of three months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and treating that the Manager has executed the bonds.

Sd/-