Denial of education staff position was invalid due to delayed sanction contradicting statutory requirements.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2026 The 1^st petitioner is the Manager of an Aided Primary School and the 2^nd petitioner is a Teacher appointed in an additional division with effect from

01.06.2022.

2. The petitioners state that during the year

2023-2024, the School was sanctioned with one additional post of UPST and LPST, but the revised Staff Fixation Order was issued only on 23.09.2024, as per Ext.P7 during the midst of the academic year. The 1^st petitioner-Manager executed declaration so as to comply with 1:1 ratio in terms of Rule 7(2) of Chapter XXI of KER .

3. However, due to the delay in sanctioning the post as per Ext.P7 for the year 2023-2024, it was functioning by clubbing together and the 3^rd respondent erroneously reported that the 3^rd post was not functioning and the claim for approval from 01.06.2023 was therefore rejected by the Government as per Ext.P9.

4. The petitioners state that the denial of the

3^rd post is now pending in revision before the Government in Ext.P13 revision petition. In the year 2025-2026 also, the 3^rd division in the 1^st Standard is recommended, but it is not so far sanctioned.

5. The approval for appointment of the 2^nd petitioner as UPST was rejected for non-compliance of 1:1 ratio which was denied due to the illegal delay caused in sanctioning the additional post of LPST after the staff fixation of the School for the year 2024-2025. The petitioners would urge that it is not due to any fault of the petitioners that the staff fixation was issued belatedly so as to continue the additional post of LPST during 2024-2025, set apart for Protected Teacher.

6. The petitioners, therefore seek to quash Exts.P9 and P10 to the extent of denying the additional post of LPST during 2024-2025. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P12 order issued by the 3^rd respondent.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

8. The contention of the petitioners is that the School is entitled for additional post of LPST during 2024- 2025, which post was continuing from 2023-2024. The denial of approval to the 2^nd petitioner's appointment from 01.06.2023 is therefore illegal. The petitioners would urge that as per Rule 7(2) of Chapter XXI of KER , the 1^st respondent has to appoint Protected Teacher at the ratio of 1:1. Though the School was entitled to a post of LPST additionally from 2023-2024, it was sanctioned only on

23.09.2024, which was after Ext.P10 Staff Fixation Order. The sanctioning should relate back to the commencement of the Academic Year 2023-2024.

9. I find that the Government has considered the issue and passed Ext.P9 order stating that the post of LPST was lost in the year 2024-2025. This statement in Ext.P9 appears to be erroneous, inasmuch as the post was sanctioned in 2023-2024 by Ext.P7 order dated 23.09.2024. Therefore, the rejection of the revision petition in Ext.P9 on that ground cannot be sustained.

10. Aggrieved by Ext.P12 order, the 1^st petitioner has filed Ext.P13 revision petition before the 1^st respondent. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that Ext.P13 revision petition should be considered taking note of the fact that the post of LPST was sanctioned as per Ext.P7 on 23.09.2024 in the midst of the academic year after the Staff Fixation Order was passed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that revision is posted for hearing on

27.03.2026.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P13 revision petition untrammelled by any of the findings in Ext.P9. Orders shall be passed within a per