The court established that educational authorities must follow proper procedures when approving staff appointments, particularly when vacancies are established.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who was appointed as UPSA in the school under the management of the 5th respondent for various spells from 2005 to 2014, by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 orders, is aggrieved by the non- approval to her appointment with effect from June 2014. In the writ petition, it is contended that the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was denied stating that, the vacancy to which she was appointed had not been established since the vacancy was one that resulted consequent to the promotion of the incumbent as Headmaster and the said promotion had not been approved by the educational authority. The petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P8 order of the Director of Public Instructions, wherein a direction has been given by the said authority to the District Educational Officer, to consider the approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the vacancy being established consequent to the approval granted to the promotee. It is stated that, notwithstanding the said direction of the Director of Public Instructions in Ext.P8 order, when Ext.P9 order was passed by the District Educational Officer on an application preferred by the promotee, approving the promotion of the promotee, the District Educational Officer did not pass a consequential order in relation to the petitioner based on the directions in Ext.P8 order of the Director of Public Instructions. In the writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is essentially for a direction to the District Educational Officer to pass consequential orders pursuant to Ext.P8 order of the Director of Public Instructions, taking note of the approval that has since been granted to the promotee by Ext.P9 order.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It is, submitted by the learned Government Pleader based on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent that the issue of approval to the appointment of the petitioner is kept pending since clarifications were sought from the office of the Director of Public Instructions and the said clarifications have not been received by the District Educational Officer.

4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, in the light of Ext.P9 order of the District Educational Officer approving the promotion of the Headmaster Sri.K.V.Santhosh Kumar, the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed with effect from June 2014, has become established. I, therefore, see no reason as to why the District Educational Officer should postpone the passing of any orders of approval in relation to the appointment of the petitioner to the said vacancy with effect from June 2014. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed directing the 4th respondent to pass consequential orders, pursuant to Ext.P8 order of the Director of Public Instructions, by approving the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA in the school with effect from June 2014, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if need be after hearing the petitioner and the Manager of the school. It is made clear that, on passing orders of approval, the petitioner shall also be disbursed the salary and other emoluments flowing from such approval within a further period of three months from the date of grant of approval. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent for further action.