The petitioner is aggrieved with the audit objection in so far as the petitioner's promotion having not been approved by the Department. In fact no specific approval is required as is evident from Exts.P1 and P9, which are the respective feeder category rules which have been implemented in the society. In such circumstances, the audit objection, as stated in Ext.P5, cannot survive. 2. The petitioner was promoted in the vacancy of Smt.Santhamma. Smt.Santhamma, who was working as Accountant, was promoted as Chief Accountant on 17.8.2001 and the resultant vacancy in the post of Accountant was filled up by the petitioner. The promotion of Smt.Santhamma was objected to by the Department and exemption which was granted by a valid resolution was not approved by the Registrar. The said Santhamma had filed a writ petition numbered as W.P.(C)No.8429/2010 which had eventually been allowed by judgment dated 3.9.2014. In such circumstances, the objection in Ext.P11 can no longer be sustained. Ext.P11 merely stated that the petitioner's promotion would be subject to the W.P.(C) No.15412 of 2014 2 promotion of Smt.Santhamma being approved by the Court. The promotion of Smt.Santhamma having been approved by the court in W.P.(C)No.8429/2010, the petitioner's promotion would also have to be approved especially since the petitioner has the requisite qualifications and the promotion has been made in accordance with the feeder category rules. There shall be a direction that the petitioner's promotion be approved. The audit objection is of no consequence.
The writ petition is allowed. Parties left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE vpv