The requirement for contemporaneous documentation in employment appointment cases is essential; lack of genuine records can invalidate administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

T.R. RAVI, J.

These two writ petitions relate to the same issue and are heard and disposed of together. The status of the parties and the exhibits referred to is as stated and produced in W.P.(C)No. 12105 of 2021.

2. One M.Ramachandran, who was working as a teacher in MAM UP School, retired on 30.4.2015. On 1.6.2015, Smt.Jyothi was appointed as UPSA by the Manager. On the same day the 6^th respondent is stated to have been appointed as LPSA in an additional vacancy which had been sanctioned, as per Ext.R6(a). Smt.Jyothi resigned from the school on 10.7.2015. The petitioner was appointed as a UPSA at the MAM UP School, in the retirement vacancy of Sri. Ramachandran, with effect from 29.07.2015, as seen from Ext.P1 proposal. The AEO, Kunnamangalam, rejected approval of the appointment as per Ext.P2 order dated 17.01.2017, on the reason that only 23 divisions were sanctioned for the academic year 2015-16, as against the 25 divisions available during the previous year. The order also says that it is not clear whether the petitioner was appointed as UPSA or LPSA. On 17.2.2017, the Manager preferred Ext.P19 request before the DEO, Thamarassery, seeking a direction to the AEO to approve the appointment of the petitioner. It is stated in the letter that the order of AEO was against the order of DDE, Kozhikode issued on 20.9.2016 and the statutory provisions. The specific contention in Ext.P19 is that the Manager had appointed the petitioner in the retirement vacancy of Sri.M.Ramachandran, UPSA. It is also contended that there is enough student strength to sanction 25 divisions in the school. Ext.P19 request was rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 15.9.2017, citing the same reason stated by the AEO.

3. The petitioner states that though the Manager informed her that Ext.P3 order had been challenged in Revision before the Government, no such revision was filed. On 11.11.2019, the Manager submitted a revision petition before the Government requesting to restore the two posts of UPST granted as per order dated 29.1.2016 and approve the appointment of the 6^th respondent with effect from 1.6.2015. The 6^th respondent and the Manager were heard by the Government, and Ext.P4 order was issued on 24.2.2020, and the matter was remitted back to the Director of General Education to consider whether the 6^th respondent can be appointed in the 25^th division, which was available for the school. A reading of the order would show that the Government was not apprised of the appointment of the petitioner on 29.7.2015. Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P19 are not even seen referred to in the order. It is also seen that the contention of the AEO was that the Manager had not submitted any proposal for the appointment of the 6^th respondent with effect from 1.6.2015.

4. On coming to know of Ext.P4 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 revision petition before the 2^nd respondent on 29.10.2020. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.23469 of 2020 before this Court challenging Ext.P4 order and this Court by Ext.P6 interim order dated 2.11.2020 stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4. By Ext.P7 judgment, W.P.(C)No.23469 of 2020 was disposed of directing the DGE to take up Ext.P5 revision and consider the same along with the claim of the 6^th respondent, as recorded in Ext.P4. Ext.P7 judgment is seen to have been rendered after hearing the petitioner, the Government Pleader and the counsel for the party respondents. The 2^nd respondent on 28.12.2020 issued Ext.P8 order directing to consider the claim of the 6^th respondent against th