Appointment approval takes effect from the date a sanctioned vacancy arises, not from the initial appointment date.

The third respondent-school had three sanctioned Office Assistant posts during the relevant period.

Mr. Solomon retired on 31.01.2014, Mr. D. Kanagaraj retired in 2017, and Mr. Raja died on 22.04.2023.

The first respondent, J.P. Alwin Nicholas Jesudoss, was appointed as an Office Assistant on 20.11.2017, and the proposal for approval of his appointment remained pending.

Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.238, School Education Department, restricting the number of Office Assistant posts to two in schools having student strength up to 1,500.

The first respondent filed W.P.No.6334 of 2022 seeking approval of his appointment.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, following which the District Educational Officer and Chief Educational Officer preferred the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

During the pendency of the approval proposal, Mr. Raja died on 22.04.2023, resulting in a vacancy in which the first respondent could be accommodated.

Whether the first respondent’s appointment as Office Assistant was liable to be approved notwithstanding the Government’s subsequent restriction of the sanctioned strength of Office Assistants to two posts.

Whether approval of the first respondent’s appointment should take effect from the date of his appointment, 20.11.2017, or only from 22.04.2023, when the vacancy arose on the death of the existing Office Assistant, Mr. Raja.

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.238, School Education Department, dated 13.11.2019, which restricted the number of Office Assistant posts to two in schools with student strength up to 1,500.

It further relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A.(MD) Nos.816 of 2023 and etc., dated 23.06.2026, holding that appointments already made, for which approval proposals were pending either before or after the Government Order, must be considered on their own merits.

If approved, such appointments would be co-terminus with the incumbent’s tenure, and the institution would have no right to fill the post after it became vacant; future appointments must conform to the staff strength fixed under the Government Order.

The Court also applied the principle that approval could be granted against an available sanctioned vacancy arising during the pendency of the approval proceedings.

The Court noted that the first respondent had been appointed on 20.11.2017 and that his approval proposal was pending when the Government’s staffing restriction came into effect.

Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling, the Court held that the pending proposal had to be considered on its own merits and could not be rejected solely because of the subsequent restriction in sanctioned strength.

However, as two Office Assistants were already working when the Government Order was issued, retrospective approval from the date of the first respondent’s appointment could not be granted.

The death of Mr. Raja on 22.04.2023 created the necessary vacancy within the permissible staff strength, enabling the first respondent to be accommodated against that vacancy.

Accordingly, approval was directed from 22.04.2023, rather than from 20.11.2017.

The writ order dated 22.11.2023 in W.P.No.6334 of 2022 was modified to that extent.

The writ appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.