The petitioner was appointed as physical education teacher in the 3rd respondent's school during two distinct spells, against leave vacancies, from 05-07-2000 to 08-09- 2000 and from 22-09-2000 to 24-11-2000. Thereafter he was appointed against a regular vacancy which arose on retirement of one Sri. Viswanathan Nair, with effect from 06-06-2001. Approval of the appointments of the petitioner against the leave vacancies and the regular vacancy was rejected, initially based on the allegation that no protected teacher was appointed in the school in view of G.O (MS) No.123/1999/G.Edn, dated 05-08-1995, eventhough the school in question is a newly established/upgraded school. Subsequently, based on the modified guidelines, this court had issued directions in various cases of identical nature to approve the appointments. Therefore the Government have approved appointments of similarly situated persons discarding the rejection based on non-appointment of protected teachers. The petitioner had approached this court in a writ petition filed as W.P (c) No.18568/2004. In Ext.P9 interim order the Government was directed to consider the matter and to take a decision on the revision petition submitted by the petitioner, after affording opportunity of personal hearing. Exhibit P10 is the consequential order issued. Referring to G.O (P) No.46/2006/G.Edn dated 01-02-2006 it was pointed out that the Government have taken a decision to exempt the schools opened or upgraded upto 1990 from the condition to appoint protected hands, provided they have satisfied the condition with respect to appointment of the minimum of one protected teacher. By virtue of the said Government order, approval of appointment of various teachers including the petitioner was ordered with effect from 01-02- 2006 (the date of G.O (P) No.46/2006). But the term of appointment prior to 01-02-2006 was not approved. Under such circumstances the petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 to the extent it not approved appointment of the petitioner in two spells of leave vacancies and as well as from 06-06- 2001 upto 01-02-2006.
2. The legal position with respect to insistence for appointment of protected teacher and also with respect to interpretation of various guidelines issued in this regard, now stands settled through various precedents of this court. In Nadeera V. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 790) the issue was discussed in detail. It is held by this court that approval of appointment made by the Manager in exercise of power vested under K.E.R, against any sanctioned post, cannot be postponed merely on the basis of a plea that the same can be done only from the date of appointment of protected hands. Further it is held that, the objection of the manager arises only in a cases where the educational authority had forwarded list of protected teachers available within the district, in the category in question. It is further held by this court that, once the approval is granted the same will relates back to the date of appointment and there cannot be any denial of approval on the specific reason that the requirement for appointment of protected teacher was fulfilled only on a subsequent dates. In Marcia Collin Noronha V. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 300) it is held by a Division Bench that whatever be the date of approval granted by the statutory authorities such approval would relates back to the date of appointment and its efficacy will be for the entire period for which the appointment has been granted and approved.
3. This court is of the opinion that, in view of the legal precedents remaining settled on the subject matter, the issue requires reconsideration. Question regarding approval of appointment of the petitioner with respect to the period from 05-07-2000 to 08-09-2000 and from 22-09- 2000 to 24-11-2000 as well as approval of the regular appointment for the period from 06-06-2001 till 01-02-2006 need to be re-examined based on the settled legal precedents and based on the observations contained in this judgment.
4. Therefore this writ petition is allowed by quashing Ext.P10 to the extent it not approved appointment prior to 01-02-2006. The matter is remitted for a fresh decision by the Government. The 1st respondent shall consider the matter, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent manager. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge