Administrative orders rejecting teacher appointment approvals must consider prior Government Orders and the date of promotion, not subsequently introduced qualifications.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the

4^th respondent to take necessary steps for submitting the appointment order of the petitioner in compliance with Ext.P15 order.

2. Petitioner would submit that while working as UPST, she was promoted as HSA (Social Science) with effect from 02.06.2014 against a retirement vacancy of one Balakrishnan. Though petitioner was promoted as HSA (Social Science), the appointment was not approved essentially for the reason that the petitioner’s qualifications of Bachelor degree in Sanskrit and B.Ed degree in Malayalam are not sufficient for the appointment to the post of HSA (Social Science). Petitioner would submit that the said issue has been resolved by the issuance of Ext.P8 order by the Government. Subsequently the claim was considered by the Government as per Ext.P15. Going by Ext.P15, the only reason for non- approval of the appointment of the petitioner is that necessary proposal has not been submitted by the 4^th respondent Manager. It was further stated that on a fresh proposal being submitted by the Manager, a direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner for approval of appointment. It is at this stage the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 4^th respondent Manager to submit the necessary proposal as directed in Ext.P15. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.03.2024 directing the 4^th respondent to resubmit the proposal as directed in Ext.P15, a fresh proposal was submitted by the 4^th respondent Manager, which has now been rejected as per Ext.P16 by the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam stating that the petitioner has not obtained the necessary qualification. The contention of the petitioner is that the promotion of the petitioner was as early as in 2014 and the qualification which was brought in subsequently cannot be a reason for non-approval of the appointment of the petitioner, especially when in Ext.P15 order by the Government dated 28.01.2022 only reason stated is that necessary proposal has not been submitted by the 4^th respondent Manager.

3. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P15 order though produced along with an interlocutory application, has not been challenged in this writ petition by amending the writ petition and further that an appeal is provided against the same before the 2^nd respondent, which the petitioner has not availed. Thereupon learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal would be filed before the 2^nd respondent challenging Ext.P16 without any delay and a direction may be issued to the 2^nd respondent to take a decision on the same within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

After hearing both sides, I am of the view that Ext.P16 order was issued without taking note of the fact that the promotion of the petitioner as HSA (Social Science) was as early as on 02.06.2014 and Ext.P15 Government Order. A perusal of Ext.P16 would reveal that none of the directions in Ext.P15 and Ext.P8 Government Order has been taken into consideration. Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of as follows:

Petitioner shall prefer an appeal before the 2^nd respondent challenging Ext.P16 order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If such an appeal is filed within the time granted, the same shall be treated to have been filed within time. The 2^nd respondent shall take a decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the appeal.