The non-approval of an appointed teacher's position cannot be justified due to administrative oversights if the rules allow for her approval.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner is before this Court challenging Exts.P2, P3, P9 and P13 orders. The petitioner, being duly qualified, was appointed to the post of UPST in the 6^th respondent’s Aided Management School for the period from 01.10.2021 to 31.05.2024 against the vacancy that arose due to the Leave Without Allowance (LWA) availed by Smt.Deepa B. Pillai, UPSA, for the period from 02.06.2020 to 31.05.2024. The petitioner has been working in the School pursuant to Ext.P1 Appointment Order issued by the

6^th respondent.

2. Approval to Ext.P1 appointment was rejected by the respondents as per Exts.P2, P3 and P9 orders on the ground that the leave period of Smt.Deepa B. Pillai from 02.06.2020 to 31.05.2023 had not been sanctioned. It was further stated that the Manager had not appointed a protected Teacher from the Teachers’ Bank in the vacancy held by the petitioner as mandated under Chapter XXI, Rule 7 of the Kerala Education Rules ( KER ) and therefore approval of the petitioner’s appointment could not be granted even if the leave were to be sanctioned. The Government as per Ext.P10 order sanctioned leave to Smt.Deepa B. Pillai.

3. Against Ext.P9, the 6^th respondent preferred Ext.P11 Revision Petition before the Government. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.34788/2024. This Court by Ext.P12 judgment disposed of the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 Revision Petition after hearing the parties. In obedience to the directions in Ext.P12, the 1^st respondent, on misconception of facts and law, passed Ext.P13 order, contends the petitioner.

4. The 1^st respondent passed Ext.P13 on the ground that the petitioner was appointed in a post to be filled up by a protected Teacher from the Teachers Bank. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot be treated to be a claimant under Chapter XIVA Rule 51A of KER . The petitioner was over-aged and the re-appointment of the petitioner could not be approved.

5. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in The Manager, AM Higher Secondary School, Vengoor v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1) KLT SN 17] , the Manager need not appoint a protection Teacher from the Teachers Bank. The appointment of the petitioner from 01.10.2021 ought to have been approved by the respondents since the period of appointment is more than one year. The petitioner is not over-aged during the year 2021 and therefore, she ought to have been treated as a claimant under Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of KER , argued the petitioner.

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

7. The petitioner was initially appointed as UPST against a vacancy that arose when Smt.Deepa B. Pillai took leave on 02.06.2020 to 31.05.2023. The petitioner’s appointment against this period was not approved as approval was not granted to the leave taken by the said Deep B. Pillai.

8. The contention of the respondents is that since the petitioner’s appointment was not approved during the period 2020-2023, she cannot be treated as a Rule 51A claimant and therefore, no approval can be granted.

9. Ext.P13 is the order by which the petitioner’s claim for approval stands rejected as per the orders of the Government. Ext.P13 gives two reasons for declining approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The first reason is that leave of Deepa B. Pillai though sanctioned, the Manager ought to have appointed the petitioner after obtaining prior sanction from the educational authorities. Secondly, it is urged that the petitioner cannot be treated as a Rule 51A claimant.

10. The petitioner was appointed against the long leave vacancy with respect to Smt.Deepa B. Pillai. T