ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7491/2013 is the appellant. Rejection of approval of appointment of the appellant for the period from 4.6.2012 to 31.5.2014 as UPSA in the school, of which the 4th respondent is the Manager, was the issue which led to the filing of the Writ Petition .
2. In the judgment under appeal, though the learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the appellant, the matter was remitted to the 1st respondent to consider whether the vacancy against which the appellant was appointed, arose during the academic year 2011-12. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel appearing for the Manager.
4. By Exhibit P5 order, the appellant was appointed as UPSA for the period from 4.6.2012 to 31.5.2014. By Ext.P6, approval of appointment was rejected. Two reasons are stated in Exhibit P6 for rejecting the approval. First was that, the appellant has not passed the Kerala Teachers Eligibility Test ('KTET' for short). The second reason was that the leave without allowance vacancy against which the appellant was appointed could not have been filled up during 2012-2013.
5. According to the appellant, insofar as the requirement of passing the examination in KTET is concerned, she stands exempted by Exhibit P13 order, being a Rule 51A claimant. Insofar as the invalidity of the appointment allegedly made during the year 2012-2013 is concerned, her contention was that her appointment was to a vacancy which arose in the academic year 2011-12. These contentions were rejected and Exhibit P6 order was confirmed in Exhibit P17 order, rejecting Exhibit P12 revision filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A KER. It was challenging these proceedings, the Writ Petition was filed.
6. The judgment under appeal shows that the learned Single Judge accepted the case of the appellant that she is a Rule 51A claimant and therefore by virtue of Exhibit P13, she stands exempted from the requirement of passing the examination in KTET. The learned Single Judge also made reference to Exhibit P4 and accepted the case of the appellant that her appointment was against a vacancy which arose during the academic year 2011-12 and that therefore the prohibition of appointment as pointed out in Exhibit P6 was baseless. It is despite these findings, the learned Single Judge has remitted the case to the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhibit P12 revision, as according to him, it was not clear from Exhibit P17 as to whether the Government was aware of the fact that the appellant was appointed against the vacancy which arose in the year 2011-12.
7. In our view, since the learned Single Judge has accepted both the factual contentions pointed out above, it was unnecessary to have remitted the matter back to the Government, which will only result in further delay in getting the appointment of the appellant approved. We therefore set aside the direction contained in the judgment under appeal remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration of the revision and dispose of this appeal directing the 3rd respondent to grant approval for the appointment of the appellant effected as per Exhibit P5 order issued by the 4th respondent.
This shall be done as expeditiously as possible along with all consequential reliefs, on the production of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE