ANEESH E. S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as UPSA by Ext P1, against a substantive vacancy which occurred due to retirement of a Teacher, in the seventh respondent School.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent rejected the approval of appointment of the petitioner stating that no vacancy of UPSA has arisen, and what had arisen was the vacancy of the post of LPSA and that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of LPSA. The petitioner had preferred revision petition before the second respondent challenging Ext P3 order. The second respondent issued Ext P6 order directing the fifth respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner. However, the fifth respondent has not taken any action on Ext P6. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the fifth respondent to implement Ext P6.

(3.) The petitioner laments that proposal is kept pending indefinitely by the respective respondents, on the specious plea that the icon of the Samanwaya software, which is used for granting approval of appointments has become dysfunctional.