Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 order which the Government passed on a claim advanced by the petitioner that she was entitled to preference for appointment as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school under the management of the second respondent. She was appointed for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982 consequent on promotion of one Smt. P. Radha, an Upper Primary School Assistant as High School Assistant in a leave Vacancy. The Manager appointed her again as Upper Primary School Assistant from 15-7-1982 to 13-8-1982 in a newly sanctioned post. That appointment was, curiously, during the currency of the first appointment. The manager had reported the promotion of Smt. Radha as H.S.A. for approval as he was obliged to do. He also separately reported the appointment of the petitioner on two occasions from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982 and from 15-7-1982 to 13-8-1982 for approval. The controlling officer refused to approve the promotion of Smt. Radha for the reason that there was an excess High School Assistant on the staff who could be deployed in that vacancy, Smt. Radha had therefore to continue as Upper Primary School Assistant. If that was so, there was no vacancy in which the petitioner could have been appointed from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982. The appointment of the petitioner for the period from 15-7-1982 to 13-8-1982 was not approved, because the period of appointment was for less than one month, and no such appointment could have been made against such a leave vacancy. In other words, neither of the two appointments of the petitioner was approved by the Department. A maternity leave vacancy arose in the school when Smt. Kamala, an Upper Primary School Assistant took leave from 14-7-1982 to 19-11-1982. The manager appointed the. third respondent who was a qualified hand. Petitioner objected to the approval of that appointment of the third respondent on the ground that her earlier appointment entitled her to preference. However, the controlling officer approved that appointment. In the mean time, the manager had filed an appeal against the refusal of the controlling officer to approve the promotion of Smt. Radha as High School Assistant. The appeal was rejected by order dated 20-12-1982. That order has become final, since neither the manager nor Smt. Radha had taken up the matter any further. In the mean time, the manager had filed an appeal against the refusal of the controlling officer to approve the promotion of Smt. Radha as High School Assistant. The appeal was rejected by order dated 20-12-1982. That order has become final, since neither the manager nor Smt. Radha had taken up the matter any further. The result is that there was no vacancy of Upper Primary School Assistant for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982, in which the petitioner could have been appointed, or even if appointed, her appointment could have been approved by the Department. 2. The petitioner filed O. P. 6464 of 1983 before this Court, challenging refusal of approval of her appointment. She obtained an order of stay of approval of the appointment of the third respondent. Subsequently, this Court disposed of the Original Petition itself directing the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner. The Government passed a fairly elaborate order-Ext. P2 dated 20-3-1984- after hearing the petitioner, the Headmaster and the third respondent through representatives. The Government disposed of the contentions raised by the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not entitled for approval of her appointment for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982 in the promotion vacancy or from 15-7-1982 to 13-8-1982 in the additional vacancy. It also held that she had no preferential claim under R.51A Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules for appointment, in the subsequent leave vacancy. Petitioner challenges Ext. P2 order. 3. Counsel for petitioner urged before me four points for consideration. He submits firstly that the appointment of the petitioner as U.P.S.A. "for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982 ought to have been approved, because, there was, as a matter of fact, a vacancy of Upper Primary School Assistant, the manager had appointed her and she had actually worked in that post. Counsel submits that her appointment in an available vacancy and service rendered by her consequent thereon should be recognised by the Controlling Officer and the Government; and that the latter completely ignored that basic right of the teachers in passing Ext. P2 order. His next submission is that Government erred in refusing to approve the promotion of Smt. Radha as High School Assistant, since a protected teacher could not be deployed in a short term leave vacancy and also since the subject requirements did not permit such deployment. Ext. P2 order. His next submission is that Government erred in refusing to approve the promotion of Smt. Radha as High School Assistant, since a protected teacher could not be deployed in a short term leave vacancy and also since the subject requirements did not permit such deployment. Ext. P3 order directing absorption of protected teachers irrespective of subject requirements was issued only on 12-10-1982 and had no retrospective effect. The appointment of the petitioner in the consequent vacancy should therefore have been approved, whereas the vacancy arose earlier. Counsel submits next that approval of her appointment from 11-6-1982 should not have been denied on the basis of the staff fixation order which came into being only on 14-7-1982. The next submission is that R.51A Chapter XIV-A of the K E.R. entitles any qualified teacher with prior service in the school-whether that is approved service or not to be preferred for future appointment; and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been given preference to the third respondent for appointment in the leave vacancy from 14-7-1982 to 19-11-1982. 4. The Manager of aided schools can appoint teachers only according to the provisions of the Education Rules. The Government has obligation to pay salary etc, only of teachers who are duly appointed and whose appointments are approved according to the Rules. The only fact that the manager appointed a teacher and the latter is qualified is no reason to hold the Government liable to approve the appointment and pay the teacher. Nor does the Government have any obligation to pay salary of the teacher for the only reason that he had worked pursuant to the order of appointment. The right of the teacher to be remunerated for the work extracted from her cannot be disputed. But if the appointment was not in accordance with the rules, it is the manager who made the irregular appointment and not the Government that has the obligation to pay the teacher. To hold otherwise will be to put a premium on the waywardness of the managers. I am therefore not in a position to agree that the only fact that the teacher is entitled to be remunerated for the work extracted from her casts an obligation on the respondents to approve her appointment and pay her the salary for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982. 5. I am therefore not in a position to agree that the only fact that the teacher is entitled to be remunerated for the work extracted from her casts an obligation on the respondents to approve her appointment and pay her the salary for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982. 5. The staff requirements of the school on the basis of the effective strength of students on the 6th working day is the basis for fixation of staff in aided schools. The manager must therefore, have been aware of the strength of pupils on the crucial date and that there was likely to be reduction in the establishment rendering a High School Assistant surplus to requirements. He must also have been aware that the surplus teacher may have to be deployed in the leave vacancy for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982. He could not therefore have promoted Smt. Radha as High School Assistant except for the purpose of creating a vacancy of Upper Primary School Assistant, so as to appoint the petitioner. He should be taken to have been fully aware even on 11-6-1982 when he appointed the petitioner that chances of approval of her appointment was scarce. That he was so aware is evident from the fact that he did not pursue the matter of approval of the promotion of Smt. Radha as High School Assistant in the leave vacancy beyond the first appellate stage. In these circumstances, I am not impressed with the submission that the Government erred in law and acted arbitrarily in refusing approval of the promotion of Smt. Radha and the resultant appointment of the petitioner for the period from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982 on the basis of the staff fixation order which came into effect on 15-7-1982. No question therefore arises of any right of the petitioner being impaired by the order subsequent to her regular appointment. 6. Ext. P3 is the order by which the Government clarified various issues arising from the instructions in favour of protected teachers. The fifth question dealt with in that order was: "Are subject requirement to be looked into while considering protection of teachers." The answer was: "Subject requirements will have to be looked into while determining excess of teachers and consequential protection." The above question and answer related only to the stage of giving protection to teachers. The fifth question dealt with in that order was: "Are subject requirement to be looked into while considering protection of teachers." The answer was: "Subject requirements will have to be looked into while determining excess of teachers and consequential protection." The above question and answer related only to the stage of giving protection to teachers. Its only import was that teachers may be protected and retained in the same school, if the subject requirements of the school obligated such retention. That order did not deal with the deployment of protected teachers. The whole purpose of rendering protection to surplus teachers was to enable retention of teachers who had rendered specified periods of service. Its justification rested in a corresponding obligation on the part of such teachers to make themselves useful to the institution. If a Social Studies teacher can be promoted to fill a leave vacancy of a Natural Science teacher, deployment of a Mathematics teacher cannot be any the worse. The latter arrangement has the advantage that the institution gets some benefit out of that arrangement by utilising the service of a fully paid surplus teacher atleast for some time. The only merit of the former arrangement is to enable the manager to make fresh appointment of an Upper Primary School Assistant. I am not impressed by the submission that the Government went wrong in preferring the latter to the, former arrangement. I am also of the opinion that it is a misconception to think that the Education Rules and the protection orders are meant only to benefit the manager in making more and more appointments and the teachers in claiming emoluments without any corresponding obligation to work to earn the same. Whether Ext.P3 order be declaratory and therefore retrospective or whether it be only prospective, it does not advance the case of the petitioner. In any case, the promotion of Smt. Radha would not have satisfied the subject requirements in the High School classes. The leave vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed as U. P. S. A. could arise only on the approval of the promotion of Smt. Radha, as High School Assistant. Admittedly, the approval of that appointment was rejected and such rejection had become final. There was no vacancy since Smt. Radha was not promoted. The petitioner could not therefore claim any appointment as U. P. S. A or any preference arising from such appointment. Admittedly, the approval of that appointment was rejected and such rejection had become final. There was no vacancy since Smt. Radha was not promoted. The petitioner could not therefore claim any appointment as U. P. S. A or any preference arising from such appointment. 7. The argument is that subject requirement became obligatory only after Ext. P3 dated 20-12-1982 and therefore the leave vacancy of Natural Science teacher could have been filled up by promoting Mrs. Radha who was Social Science teacher. In any case Smt. Radha would not reasonably have been promoted against the leave vacancy of a Natural Science Teacher, because the school had a H.S.A. (Mathematics) in excess of the requirements and that teacher could more competently be deployed, if subject requirements did not apply. In view of the above, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioner. 8. It is true that R.51 A of Chapter XIV-A provides that: "Qualified teachers who are relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency, provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency." It is necessary to refer to R.8, 48, 49 and 52 of the Chapter XIV A of the Rules to understand and appreciate the real scope and content of the preference provided under R.51-A. R.8 provides for the procedure of approval of appointment. R.48 provides that: "no teacher shall be relieved before the expiry of the term of appointment without the previous approval of the Educational Officer." These two provisions make it clear that not only the appointment, but premature termination of service also shall be with the approval of the controlling officers. 9. R.49 deals with relief of teachers on the expiry of the academic year for the reason that they have not completed eight months of service. R.52 deals with relief of teachers on termination of vacancy. Such teachers alone are entitled to preference for future appointment. It appears to me to be obvious that the service prior to relief should not only be qualified, but also approved. If it were otherwise, there is no need for R.8 Chapter XIV-A providing for approval of appointment, nor any for approval of relief of a teacher prior to the expiry of the term of appointment. It appears to me to be obvious that the service prior to relief should not only be qualified, but also approved. If it were otherwise, there is no need for R.8 Chapter XIV-A providing for approval of appointment, nor any for approval of relief of a teacher prior to the expiry of the term of appointment. The managers can fob many a credulous teacher off on the Government by appointing them in vacancies which will not be approved. I am not inclined to agree that the preference under R.51-A Chapter XIV-A is available to all qualified teachers who are relieved notwithstanding absence of approval of such appointments. 10. The preference provided in R.51-A Chapter XIV-A of the Rules operates only in favour of a qualified teacher relieved under specified circumstances. The petitioner had not been relieved on 14-7-1982, nor was the leave vacancy for the period from 14-7-1982 to 13-11-1982 a "future vacancy" after his relief. The petitioner could not therefore claim any preference for appointment in that vacancy. I therefore hold that the Government was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment from 11-6-1982 to 13-8-1982, or 15-7-1982 to 13-8-1982 or from 14-7-1982 to 13-11-1982. There is no merit in this Original Petition and the same is dismissed. This judgment will not preclude the petitioner, if she is otherwise entitled, to enforce her claim for emoluments against the manager for the period during which she had actually worked in the school Parties will suffer their respective costs.