The approval of appointment must relate back to the date of actual appointment if conditions are satisfied.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner, who is working as HSST (Junior)

(Mathematics), has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 4^th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the actual date of appointment as in Ext.P2 appointment order and to set aside Ext.P3 to the extent the approval was granted only with effect from 29.08.2013. The petitioner submits that the legal issue involved in the writ petition is covered in her favour as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4296 of 2026.

2. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be compared with the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.4296 of 2026. There are factual differences. However, in the light of Exts.P5 and P6, the issue raised by the petitioner can be reconsidered.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.

4. The petitioner was appointed as HSST (Junior) (Mathematics) with effect from 04.03.2013. However, when the Regional Deputy Director issued Ext.P3 order dated 26.10.2015, the petitioner’s appointment was approved only with effect from 29.08.2013, on the ground that the new post was created only with effect from that date.

5. This Court considered the legality of such appointment in the midst of the academic year, in W.P.(C) No.19141 of 2013. This Court disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment holding that sanction has to relate back to the concerned academic year when the batch was sanctioned. The matter was taken up by the State before the Division Bench of this Court filing W.A.No.724 of 2015. The Division Bench upheld Ext.P5 judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Hon’ble Apex Court also, as per Ext.P7 order dated 30.04.2024, upheld the judgment of this Court.

6. An identical case came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.4296 of 2026. In the said writ petition, this Court declared that the prospective operation of the sanction for upgradation is arbitrary and sustainable.

In the afore facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider the issue in the light of Exts.P5 to P7 judgments/orders. If the petitioner satisfies all other parameters, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner should relate back to the initial date of her appointment. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months.

Sd/-