Judgment : 1. These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners who are teachers of a Vocational Higher secondary School (Victory V.H.S.S., Olathanni, Neyyattinkara P.O.) W.P.(c) Nos. 31102 / 2010 and 21571/2011 are filed by Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy and W.P. (C) No. 32508/2011 is filed by the first petitioner in these two writ petitions, viz Smt. J. Alphonsa. W.P. (C) No. 37103 /2010 is filed by Smt. R. Ajitha Kumari who is a common respondent in all the other writ petitions and W.P. (C) No.236/2112 is filed by Smt. C. Swarnamma and Smt. S. Sheeba. 2. The dispute between these parties and other contesting respondents in the writ petitions is one of seniority. Essentially, the question is whether, on reduction of the post consequent on staff fixation, who among them are entitled to be retained in terms of the seniority. 3. The six teachers who have been appointed as U.P.S.A., are having approved continuous service from 1.6.1998. Going by the seniority assigned, they are arrayed in the following order: (i) Smt. S. Sheeba (ii) Shri. G. Biju, (iii) Smt. R. Ajitha Kumari, (iv) Smt. J. Alphonsa, (v) Smt. Seline P. Reni; and (vi) Smt. O.N. Judy, Serial Nos. 4 and 6 are respectively the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 31102/2010 and 21571/2011. Serial No.1 Smt. S. Sheeba is the second petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 236/2012 and serial No. (iv) is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 32508/2011. Serial No.2, Shri G. Biju has been arrayed as a respondent in all these writ petitions. Serial No. (iii) is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No 37103/2010. The seniority has been assigned, on the basis of age. 4. For tracing out the history with regard to the appointments and the genesis of the dispute, I shall refer to the facts pleaded in W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010. 5. Even though the petitioner was appointed in the years 1996 and 1998 in two leave vacancies as per Exts.P1 and P2 appointment orders, those appointments have not been approved. When six regular vacancies of U.P.S.A.s arose in the year 1998-1999, the petitioner was also appointed along with five others, as already noticed. Ext. P3 is the order of appointment as far as the petitioner is concerned and the approval is granted from 1.6.1998. When six regular vacancies of U.P.S.A.s arose in the year 1998-1999, the petitioner was also appointed along with five others, as already noticed. Ext. P3 is the order of appointment as far as the petitioner is concerned and the approval is granted from 1.6.1998. The seniority among these six are fixed based on their date of birth and accordingly she was placed as serial No.3. By Ext. P4, she was promoted as H.S.A. (Maths) on 15.6.2000 against an additional division vacancy and the said appointment has also been approved. Due to division fall in the year 2008-2009, she was reverted from the post of H.S.A. to the post of U.P.S.A with effect from 15.7.2008 and in that year only five U.P.S.A. posts were sanctioned and thus the sixth among them, who is the juniormost, was retrenched with effect from 15.7.2008. 6. All the controversies herein were triggered when the juniormost Smt. O.N. Judy (6th respondent) was thus retrenched. As far as the said teacher is concerned, she was initially appointed from 10.1.1996 to 29.3.1996 in a maternity leave vacancy of Smt. T. Geethakumari, U.P.S.A. The said appointment was not approved and a revision petition was filed which was rejected as per Ext. P6 order dated 18.11.1999. It was never challenged in a further revision before the Government by her or by the Manager. On coming to know that she will be reverted from 15.7.2008 she filed a revision petition dated 12.5.2008, Ext. P7 before the Government challenging Ext.P6 order. The time gap is more than 8 years. 7. It appears that the Government called for the remarks of respondents 2 and 3. Exts. P8 to P10 are the true copies of the reports submitted by respondents 2 and 3, the contents of which were against her. Finally, the Government by Ext. P11, passed an order directing the District Educational Officer to approve the appointment from 10.1.1996 to 29.3.1996 of Smt. O.N. Judy as U.P.S.A. “if there is an established vacancy and if there are no other senior claimants, provided also if she is otherwise eligible”. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Manager immediately produced the appointment order for approval before the third respondent and the same was approved, as evident from Ext. P12. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Manager immediately produced the appointment order for approval before the third respondent and the same was approved, as evident from Ext. P12. The said order of approval, according to the petitioner, is by overlooking the claims of the senior most teacher, Smt. S.Sheeba, 7th respondent and another two senior claimants, viz. Smt. J. Alphonsa (8th respondent) and Smt. Seline P. Rini. The Manager also issued an appointment order appointing Smt. Sheeba as U.P.S.A. for the period from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996, in the notional promotion vacancy of the 9th respondent therein, Smt. C.Swarnamma, H.S.A. who is the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 236/2012, by Ext. P13 order. The same was also approved. In fact, Smt. Swarnamma had already retired from service on 31.3.2008 and her continuous service as H.S.A. is only from 1.6.1998. Apart from that, no approval has been granted for the notional promotion of the 9th respondent Swarnamma for the from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996 which information is given in Ext. P14. 8. The 8th respondent Smt. J. Alphonsa also got the benefit of Ext. P11 and she was given an appointment from 9.10.1995 to 12.12.1995 in the leave vacancy of Shri. M.P. Balakrishna Pillai which also was approved as per Ext. P15 order dated 23.4.2010. In fact, she was already retrenched with effect from 31.3.2010 for want of vacancy. 9. Based on the orders of approval, Exts. P13 and P15, both teachers, Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy claimed seniority over the petitioner Smt. Ajitha Kumari and in the light of the above, she filed Ext. P16 petition before the Government opposing the approval granted. The main contention therein is that artificial vacancies have been created. Later, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 23402/2010 challenging Exts.P11, P12, P13 and P14 and this Court by Ext. P18 judgment, directed the Government to dispose of Ext. P16 representation (Ext.P11 therein). Ext.P21 is the final order passed by the Government thereon directing the Director of Public Instruction to arrange an enquiry and to report about the various aspects with regard to the legality of the appointments made be the Manager. The Government for taking action against the concerned. The said order is under challenge by the petitioner since the entire prayers of the petitioner were not granted by the Government. The Government for taking action against the concerned. The said order is under challenge by the petitioner since the entire prayers of the petitioner were not granted by the Government. This is the background under which the said writ petition is filed. 10. There is a subsequent development while the writ petition was pending, which is clear from the additional documents produced by the petitioner in the reply affidavit. In tune with the direction in Ext. P21, the Additional Director of Public Instruction submitted Ext. P24 enquiry report before the Government and after examining the report, the Government passed Ext. P25 order canceling Ext.P11 which directed approval of appointment of Smt. Judy and Consequently the Government cancelled the approval of appointment of the following teachers: 1. Smt. Sheeba S., U.P.S.A. from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996 2. Smt. Alphonsa J., U.P.S.A. from 9.10.95 to 12.12.95 3. Smt. Judy O.N., U.P.S.A. from 10.1.96 to 29.3.96 11. Ext. P27 is another order passed by the Government in a representation submitted by Smt. J.Alphonsa, whereby the Government determined with the seniority of four teachers, viz., Shri G. Biju, Smt. Ajithakumari R., Smt. Alphonsa J. and Smt. Selin P. Rini in that order. Therefore, as far as the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010 is concerned, even though Ext.P21 was the order under challenge, in the light of the subsequent orders, Exts. P25 and P27, the petitioner’s seniority has been restored. Exts. P25 and P27 in W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010 are under challenge by Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy in W.P. (C) Nos. 21571/2011 and 32508/2011. In W.P. (C) no. 31102/2010, the prayer is to dispose of Exts. P7 and P12 petitions filed before the District Educational Officer and in the light of the above subsequent events, the same has practically become infructuous. 12. The last of the writ petitions to be mentioned is W.P. (C) No. 236/2012 where in the petitioners are respectively Smt. C. Swarnamma and Smt. S. Sheeba. As noticed already, Smt. C. Swarnamma has retired from service as H.S.A. on 31.3.2008. Both are challenging Ext. P25 order whereby the Government refused to give approval of the appointment made by the Manager prior to 1.6.1998, in the case of the petitioners. 13. As noticed already, Smt. C. Swarnamma has retired from service as H.S.A. on 31.3.2008. Both are challenging Ext. P25 order whereby the Government refused to give approval of the appointment made by the Manager prior to 1.6.1998, in the case of the petitioners. 13. Some of the facts relating to the said writ petition are relevant to be mentioned here, since the present orders are issued pointing out that Smt. Swarnamma is not entitled for any appointment prior to 1.6.1998. This will therefore affect the claims of all the three U.P.S.As. The first petitioner, Smt. Swarnamma has different spells of appointment as U.P.S.A. in the school. The initial appointment was on 22.10.1982 as UPSA which remained unapproved. Her appointment as H.S.A (Social Science) from 4.1.1984 to 29.3.1984 was approved, as evident from Ext. P1 order. Her continuous service as UPSA was from 28.7.1983 which also was approved. In another vacancy of H.S.A. which arose on 1.8.1988 she was promoted, but approval was rejected and the appeal filed by the Manager before the third respondent, Deputy Director of Public Instruction, was also rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 27.9.1988. The further appeal filed by the Manager was also rejected. Thereafter, the Manager submitted a fresh proposal which was also rejected by the fourth respondent as per Ext. P5. The first petitioner was reverted as UPSA in January 1990 when another teacher was recalled. An appeal filed by the first petitioner before the second respondent against the order was rejected. As per Ext. P6, the first petitioner was again promoted as H.S.A (SS) during the academic year 1992-93 which was also not approved. Finally, her appointment as H.S.A. is approved only from 1.6.1998, as per Ext. P13 order. She retired from service, in terms of this appointment alone and no other claims are seen to have been raised or pending for getting approval of any other appointments, in short term vacancies prior to 1.6.1998. 14. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, her continuous service is approved only from 1.6.1998 and she was a Rule 51A claimant, as her earlier appointment from 14.7.11994 to 11.10.1994 remained approved. 15. Heard Shri.S. James Vincent, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 14. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, her continuous service is approved only from 1.6.1998 and she was a Rule 51A claimant, as her earlier appointment from 14.7.11994 to 11.10.1994 remained approved. 15. Heard Shri.S. James Vincent, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 31102/2010, 21571/2011 and 32508/2011, Shri. N. Sugathan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010 and Shri Xavieer Cheriyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 236/2012, Shri. P.N. Mohanan, Shri. P.K. Manojkumar and Smt. M. Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and Shri Biju Meenattor, learned Government Pleader. 16. The contentions raised by Shri. S. James Vincent, in support of the petitioners in the three writ petitions are the following : It is submitted that the approval granted to Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy are really valid. There were established vacancies and it is pointed out that as far as the three teachers, viz. Smt. J. Alphonsa, Smt. O.N. Judy and Smt. S. Sheeba are concerned, they have got approval for appointment in the short term vacancies prior to 1.6.1998 and the Government cancelled the same without any justification. It is submitted that the enquiry reports relied upon by the Government could not have been taken note of as they were prepared without sufficient notice to the parties concerned. Alternatively, it is also submitted that even otherwise they will get seniority, though the appointment of two teachers, Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy, prior to 1.6.1998 were not approved, as what is relevant for Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. is only qualified service and when continuous service is on the same date, they will otherwise get seniority based on the qualified service for the earlier from 1.6.1998 as there was no dispute regarding their qualification. 17. Shri Sugathan, Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010 and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Pleader opposed the said contentions. It is submitted that all the three teachers are claiming appointment in certain vacancies which were not existing. Shri Sugathan explained that Smt. Judy and Smt. Alphonsa had never challenged their non approval of appointment at any time before 2008. In the Government letter, Ext. It is submitted that all the three teachers are claiming appointment in certain vacancies which were not existing. Shri Sugathan explained that Smt. Judy and Smt. Alphonsa had never challenged their non approval of appointment at any time before 2008. In the Government letter, Ext. P11, the Government has only directed the District Educational Officer to consider the grant of approval in terms of seniority and other aspects and this was misutilised by the Manager and the District Educational Officer granted approval without ascertaining whether there are established vacancies and whether there are senior claimants. It is submitted that Smt. Sheeba is a Rule 51A claimant and therefore Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy cannot get approval of their appointment Smt.Sheeba is concerned, it is pointed out that Smt. Swarnamma (H.S.A) had no claim for vacancy which prior to 1.6.1998 and she retired on 31.3.2008. What is attempted by the Manager is to give a notional promotion to her for the period prior to 1.6.1998 an it is submitted that such notional promotion for the period from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996 cannot have any validity at all, as the order is issued in 2010 by the Manager after the retirement of Smt. Swarnamma. Smt. Swarnamma also had not challenged the grant of approval as H.S.A. from 1.6.1998 and did not claim for any approval for an earlier period. Hence, there is no established vacancy to provide Smt. Sheeba. It is submitted that while issuing Ext. P11 letter, based on which approval was granted, actually the three reports filed before the Government were not properly considered by the Government. The Government thereafter, based on a correct analysis of the reports and assessment of various facts, issued Exts. P25 and P27. 18. It is pointed out that when continuous appointment is from 1.6.1998, the seniority among the six appointees will have to be governed by Rule 37 (2) of Chapter XI- A.K.E.R. If that be so, the petitioners Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy cannot get any benefit out of their unapproved service prior to 1.6.1998. The argument of Shri James Vincent that they had qualified service which enable them to claim seniority, is also opposed by Shri. N. Sugathan, by submitting that an unapproved service is not recognized by any provisions of the Act and the Rules for any purpose including seniority. The argument of Shri James Vincent that they had qualified service which enable them to claim seniority, is also opposed by Shri. N. Sugathan, by submitting that an unapproved service is not recognized by any provisions of the Act and the Rules for any purpose including seniority. It is submitted that for the purpose of various benefits under the rules of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. the approved service of a teacher alone are reckoned. 19. Smt. M. Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent in W.P. (C) No. 21571/2011 supported the arguments of Shri N. Sugathan. It is submitted, by inviting my attention to the averments in the counter affidavit and the documents produced, that the attempt made by Smt. J. Alphonsa and Shri O.N. Judy to get approval of their appointment prior to 1.6.1998 is clearly against the rules. It is pointed out that while preparing the reports, the petitioners, viz. Smt. J.Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy were also allowed to adduce evidence and were present before the enquiry officer and thus there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Shri P.K. Manojkumar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent therein submitted that there are no established vacancies prior to 1.6.1998 for granting any approval to Smt. Swarnamma as H.S.A which disentitle Smt. Sheeba for approval prior to 1.6.1998. Since Smt. Sheeba is a Rule 51A claimant and is thus having preference, Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy cannot get approval in any vacancies prior to 1.6.1998. Shri Biju Meenattor, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government examined various aspects in terms of the factual position reflected in the enquiry reports and the decisions have been taken properly. 20. Since Smt. Sheeba is a Rule 51A claimant and is thus having preference, Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy cannot get approval in any vacancies prior to 1.6.1998. Shri Biju Meenattor, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government examined various aspects in terms of the factual position reflected in the enquiry reports and the decisions have been taken properly. 20. The Government, in the order under attack in W. P. (C) No. 21571/2011 (Ext.P16), rested the conclusions and directed cancellation of the approval granted to all the three teachers prior to 1.6.1998, on the following reasons: (a) The notional promotion of Smt. Swarnamma for the period from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996 was not approved; (b) The promotion of Smt. Swarnamma was irregular, since there were protected teachers in the category of H.S.A. from the same school, who were deployed to Government schools and they had to be recalled and posted as H.S.As.: (C) In the absence of approval of promotion of Smt. Swarnamma, the appointment of Smt. Sheeba as U.P.S.A from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996 cannot be approved as there is no established vacancy; and (d) Smt. Sheeba is a rule 51A claimant in the light of the approval granted to her earlier appointment from 14.7.1994 to 11.10.1994 as UPSA. (e) Since she is a rule 51A claimant and is senior, the appointment of Smt. J.Alphonsa from 9.10.1995 to 12.12.1996 and that of Smt. O.N. Judy from 10.1.1996 to 29.3.1996 also cannot be recognized. 21. The seniormost among the three is thus Smt. Sheeba who is the second petitioner in W.P. (c) No. 236 / 2012. Her appointment is for the period from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996 on the basis of the notional promotion granted to Smt. Swarnamma as H.S.A. Some more facts relating to the claim of Smt. Swarnamma are relevant to consider the validity of the finding of the Government regarding the said appointment. The three reports considered by the Government are produced are Exts. R6(e), R6 (f) and R6 (g) by the sixth respondent in W.P. (C) No. 21571/2011, Smt. Ajithakumari. The fact that two H.S.As. who were deployed to Government schools, are seniors, is not in dispute. A reading of Ext. R6 (e) report shows that those two teachers, namely, Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel and Smt. P.S. Sasikala were deployed to Government schools when there was reduction of posts in 1991 -1992. The fact that two H.S.As. who were deployed to Government schools, are seniors, is not in dispute. A reading of Ext. R6 (e) report shows that those two teachers, namely, Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel and Smt. P.S. Sasikala were deployed to Government schools when there was reduction of posts in 1991 -1992. In 1992-93 these two posts were sanctioned, but without recalling the protected hands, the Manager promoted two U.P.S.As as H.S.As and appointed another two fresh hands as U.P.S.As. Again in 1993-94 the above H.S.A. posts were reduced and in 1994-95 they were re-established. But during this period also the Manager, without recalling the eligible protected teachers, made appointments in leave vacancies and permanent vacancies, by appointing other persons. None of the appointments made by the Manager during these periods, were approved also. Finally, the appointment of six U.P.S. As. Were approved from 1.6.1998 by the District Educational Officer only after the two protected H.S.As were recalled. The reports proceed to state that all the appointments made by the Manager from 1992-93 onwards were irregular, as the two protected hands were not recalled and none of the appointments were thus approved. With regard to the claim of Smt. Swarnamma, it is evident from the report (Ext. R6 (e)) that in 1995-96 the total number of posts of H.S.A sanctioned is 10, whereas in 1994-95, it was 9. In 1995-96 one more post of H.S.A. (NS) was sanctioned and one of the protected H.S.As who remained outside was a Natural Science hand. Therefore, Smt. Swarnamma could not obtain anypromotion is the additional post of H.S.A. (NS). Ext. R6 (f) is the further report which also states that the Manager could not have promoted anybody without recalling the protected teachers of the same school and the appointment of Smt. Sheeba was in a non existing vacancy. Ext. R6(g) is the report submitted by the Additional Director. After referring to various documents and after hearing parties, the report concludes that for approval of appointment of Smt. Sheeba for the period from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996, there is no established vacancy as no approval has been granted for the promotion of Smt. Swarnamma. Since Smt. Sheeba is a Rule 51A claimant, the appointment of Smt. Alphonsa from 9.10.1995 to 12.12.1995 and that of Smt. Judy from 10.1.1995 to 29.3.1996 are irregular. Since Smt. Sheeba is a Rule 51A claimant, the appointment of Smt. Alphonsa from 9.10.1995 to 12.12.1995 and that of Smt. Judy from 10.1.1995 to 29.3.1996 are irregular. Therefore, the seniority will have to be reckoned based on the continuous appointment from 1.6.1998. 22. Hence the fate of Smt. J.Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy depends upon the fate of Smt. Sheeba who is a senior Rule 51 A claimant. She can get approval only if Smt. Swarnamma gets approval as H.S.A based on the notional promotion. Therefore, I shall now consider the pleas raised in W.P.(C) No. 236/2012 wherein the petitioners are Smt. Swarnamma and Smt. Sheeba. 23. The approval of Swarnamma, as H.S.A. (SS) is clear from Ext. P13 order which is effective from 1.6.1998, as H.S.A. (SS). This approval order has become final, as there was no challenge against her date of approval and she had not been prosecuting any challenge by claiming approval from a previous date than 1.6.1998 and nothing is disclosed in the writ petition regarding that. It is evident from the statement of facts which I have already referred to earlier, that her prior approved service as H.S.A. (SS) is only for the period from 4.1.1984 to 29.3.1984 (Ext.P1). Even though in some later vacancies also she was sought to be promoted, all those were not approved since senior protected hands had to be recalled. All those order have become final. Ext.P is an order dated 29.8.1989 and Ext.P7 is an order dated 31.10.1992 rejecting her claim for approval. Ext.P5 was with respect to a vacancy which arose on 1.11.1988, and Ext.P7 with respect to a vacancy from 13.10.1992. The reason for rejection in Ext. P7 is that two teachers from the school on protection, have to be recalled against additional posts. In fact, in para 13 of the writ petition, it is stated as follows: “The subsequent efforts of the Manager to promote the 1st petitioner as H.S.A. too, proved futile, even though she was uninterruptedly working as a H.S.A. from 13.10.1992. The 4th respondent approved the petitioner’s promotion as H.S.A. only w.e.f. 1.6.1998.” It evidences the fact that she never challenged the non approval of appointment for any of the earlier periods, after her approval from 1.6.1998 and she retired from service on 31.3.2008. 24. The 4th respondent approved the petitioner’s promotion as H.S.A. only w.e.f. 1.6.1998.” It evidences the fact that she never challenged the non approval of appointment for any of the earlier periods, after her approval from 1.6.1998 and she retired from service on 31.3.2008. 24. It is evident from the pleadings that there were some communications regarding her claim for grant of sanction of grade and proper pay fixation, which is clear from Exts. P18 and P19 and her subsequent representation Ext. P22 after retirement cannot have any impact on her claim for promotion prior to 1.6.1998. In fact, in para 23 of the writ petition, she also admits that she did not get approval and consequential fixation of pay and allowances. Ext. P24 therein is the proceedings of the Manager which the petitioners are relying upon. The same is dated 3.3.2011. By the said proceedings, the Manager decided that “the lien of Smt. C.Swarnamma, who was continuing in another post as H.S.A. without approval be shifted to the vacant post of HAS (SS) for the period from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996”. There is no plea that this was approved and further when two senior protected H.S.As. were remaining outside awaiting absorption in the parent school, such lien adjustment cannot be approved also. In fact, she was not granted approval at all. Hence, the proposed lien adjustment has no real validity. Her appointment in 1992-93 was already rejected by Ext.P7. 25. Therefore as far as Smt. Swarnamma is concerned, she is not eligible for getting any approval for the notional appointment which is attempted by the Manager now, that too after her retirement by adjusting a lien in a vacancy from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1996. she was working as U.P.S.A. at that point of time. Only if her promotion in the said vacancy is approved, there will be an established vacancy to promote the second petitioner herein, Smt. Sheeba. In the absence of an established vacancy, as the appointment of Smt. Swarnamma cannot be approved, the second petitioner also cannot get any approval. Therefore, the finding by the Government on this aspect that there is no established vacancy to promote Smt. Swarnamma, is perfectly justified. The two H.S.As. remaining outside from 1991-92 onwards, Smt. P.S.Sasikala and Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel were liable to recalled. Therefore, the finding by the Government on this aspect that there is no established vacancy to promote Smt. Swarnamma, is perfectly justified. The two H.S.As. remaining outside from 1991-92 onwards, Smt. P.S.Sasikala and Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel were liable to recalled. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 236/23012, Shri Xavier Cherian attempted to submit the none of the reports support the said argument, as already mentioned, in the reports it is pointed out that in 1994-95, there were nine posts of H.S.A., of which one was H.S.A (NS) and in 1995-96, there were ten posts including two posts of H.s.A. (NS).Therefore, in 1995-96, one additional post of H.S.A. (NS) was sanctioned and it can be safely concluded that there is no established vacancy for promotion of Smt. Swarnamma, H.S.A.(SS) prior to 1.6.1998. From Ext. R6 (C) order produced in the counter affidavit of 6th respondent in W.P. (c) No. 21571/2011, the relevant aspects will be further clear. In 1994-95 against the posts sanctioned in the cadre of H.S.A. which were reduced in 1993-94, the Manager promoted and appointed Smt. Anitha Jose as H.S.A. (Maths) with effect from 11.10.1994 and Smt. Aleyamma Abraham as H.S.A. (SS) with effect from 15.7.1994 and another teacher Smt. T.S. Anithakumari was appointed as U.P.S.A. from 15.7.1994. It is found that there is no established vacancy to provide Smt. Aleyamma Abraham as H.S.A and Smt. T.S. Anithakumari as U.P.S.A. since there are two protected H.S.As continuing in Government School and other two promotees by irregular appointment, viz Smt. C. Swarnamma, H.S.A (SS) and Smt. K.G. Vijalekshmy H.A.S(NS) are still continuing in High School section. This also will show that Smt. Swarnamma was not appointed in the additional vacancy for the year 1995-96 at that point of time or till her retirement. This goes a long way to reject her claim raised in the writ petition. The notional promotion attempted by the Manager, that too after her retirement, cannot have any legal sanctity. The same will therefore defeat the claim of Smt. Sheeba for approval prior to 1.6.1998 for the corresponding vacancy of U.P.S.A. 26. The next aspect is regarding the claim for approval of Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy. In fact, Ext. P11 letter produced in W.P.(C) No. 37103/2010 is one issued by the Government on a representation filed by Smt. Judy dated 12.5.2008. The proceedings Ext. The next aspect is regarding the claim for approval of Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy. In fact, Ext. P11 letter produced in W.P.(C) No. 37103/2010 is one issued by the Government on a representation filed by Smt. Judy dated 12.5.2008. The proceedings Ext. P6 dated 18.11.1999 produced therein will show that her claim for approval for the period from 10.1.1996 to 29.3.1996 was rejected, since Smt. Sheeba is the rightful Rule 51A claimant. That order was never challenged by her till 2008. This aspect is very important. Even though Ext.P11 is passed on a representation submitted by her, the Government only directed to consider her claim for approval if there is an established vacancy and if there are no senior claimants. Evidently, Smt. Sheeba is a senior claimant. Therefore, she cannot get approval for the said period. The communication Ext.P8 addressed to the Government by the Director of Public Instruction, before the disposal of her representation clearly states that Smt. Sheeba is a better claimant. Ext. P9 is a hearing note submitted by the district educational officer before the government stating that Smt. Sheeba is the better claimant. Ext. P10 is a detailed report by the District Educational Officer which contains more details. It shows that Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel, H.S.A. (Maths) and Smt. P.S. Sasikala, H.S.A. (NS) are deployed protected teachers from the school and in 1995-96 the Manager should have recalled one of the two deployed protected teachers. The irregular promotion of Smt. Swarnamma has not been approved and therefore the approval of appointment of Smt. O.N. Judy and Smt. J.Alphonsa cannot be granted as Smt. Sheeba is a better claimant. But none of these aspects have been discussed in detail in Ext. P11 order by the government. But when subsequent reports were filed before the Government, the Government considered all related aspects in Exts. P25 and P27 orders. The reports relied on by the petitioners (Ext.P3 in W.P. (C) No. 21571/2011) do not reflect the correct picture. 27. Therefore, as far as Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy are concerned, they cannot get approval since Smt. Sheeba is a better Rule 51 A claimant. They were granted approval only from 1.6.1998. The findings rendered by the government against their claims in Ext. P16 order produced in W.P.(C) No. 21571/2011 are justified. 27. Therefore, as far as Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy are concerned, they cannot get approval since Smt. Sheeba is a better Rule 51 A claimant. They were granted approval only from 1.6.1998. The findings rendered by the government against their claims in Ext. P16 order produced in W.P.(C) No. 21571/2011 are justified. Another aspect relied on by Shri James Vincent is about the filing of a common writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 8557/2008 by the petitioners and some of the respondents together which was disposed of by Ext. P7 (a) judgment. It is submitted that the respondents are estopped from contending otherwise. As rightly pointed out by Shri. N. Suganthan, learned counsel, it was not a matter concerning interse seniority. They were claiming for withheld portion of salary only. 28. Thu, it can be seen that all the three teachers, viz Smt. Sheeba, Smt. Alphonsa, and Smt. Judy are not entitled for any approval of appointment prior to 1.6.1998. 29. Regarding these disputes there is one more aspect to be considered. Shri James Vincent argued that the subsequent reports were prepared and submitted without hearing the petitioners. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6 in W.P. (C) No. 21571/2011 this argument has been met. Ext. R6 (f) report shows that the enquiry was conducted in the school on 18.3.2010 by the enquiry officer in which various documents were examined and it was in the presence of the representative of the District Educational Officer, the Manager, the Principal of the school and other teachers including Smt. Judy, Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Ajithakumari. Ext. R6 (g) report also shows that in the enquiry conducted on 22.7.2011 in the school, among others, the representatives of the Manager, Principal, an officer from the office of the District educational officer, the representative of Smt. O.N. Judy, Shri. R.T. Robilsingh, Smt. J. Alphonsa, Smt. R. Ajithakumari, Smt. S. Sheeba, Shri G. Biju and Smt. Seline P.Rini, teachers of the school have participated. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the reports have been prepared without any participation of them in the enquiry. Ext. R6(1) will show that Smt. Judy and Smt. Alphonsa had submitted a representation to the Director of Public Instruction dated 16.2.2011 requesting for an independent enquiry by another enquiry officer for forwarding a factual report to Government. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the reports have been prepared without any participation of them in the enquiry. Ext. R6(1) will show that Smt. Judy and Smt. Alphonsa had submitted a representation to the Director of Public Instruction dated 16.2.2011 requesting for an independent enquiry by another enquiry officer for forwarding a factual report to Government. This was acted upon by the Director of Public Instruction who issued Ext.R6 (m) U.O. Note specifically referring to the petition filed by Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy seeking for conducting a re-enquiry and accordingly authorized Shri. M. I. Sukumaran, Deputy Director, A.I.P. to conduct the enquiry in the school. Therefore the enquiry dated 22.7.2011 was conducted as per the request of Smt. Judy and Smt. Alphonsa and they cannot be heard to say that they were not allowed to participate in the enquiry and therefore the reports prepared cannot be accepted. Hence, I reject the said contention. In fact, apart from these controversies, another two teachers, viz. Smt. Aleyamma Abraham, H.S.A (SS) and Smt. Selin P.Rini, UPSA had also approached the Government for getting approval of their appointment from 28.10.1997 to 31.12.1997. Ext. R6 (O) is the order passed by the Government therein which is dated 21.10.2009. The same is produced as Ext. P17 in W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010. The Government rejected their contention after accepting the stand of the department that two protected teachers had to be recalled. Finally, the Government found that those appointments were also irregular and a further direction was issued to initiate disciplinary action against the Manager. This order has some bearing, since this was issued on a date prior to the issuance of Ext. P11 produced in W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010. Clearly it was overlooked by the Government at that point of time. 30. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21571/2011 all relevant aspects have been detailed. 31. The further contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri James Vincent is that even if the service of two teachers, Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy prior to 1.6.1998 are not approved, they are entitled to claim seniority. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21571/2011 all relevant aspects have been detailed. 31. The further contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri James Vincent is that even if the service of two teachers, Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy prior to 1.6.1998 are not approved, they are entitled to claim seniority. Support is sought from various decisions of this Court, viz K.P.Mathiri v. State of Kerala (1973 KLT 284), Johny v. State of Kerala (1980 KLT 734), Devaki Amma v. State of Kerala (1989 (2) KLJ 256), Vijayamma v. State of Kerala (1998 (1) KLT 706), Saramma Joseph v. Secretary to Government (2001 (3) KLT 3), Poornima v. Director of Public Instruction (2005 (3) KLT 502), Balakrishnan v.A.E.O. Vadakara (2005 (4) KLT 64) and that of the Supreme Court in P.G. Eshwarappa v. M. Rudrappa and others ((1996) 6 SCC 96). It is submitted that the two petitioners service are clearly qualified service which alone is required under Rule 37 (2) and since they have got such service, they are entitled to count the same for the purpose of seniority, even if the continuous approved service is from 1.6.1998. Rule 37 (1) (2) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. reads as follows: “37. (1) Seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post. (2) In the case of teachers in the same grade in the same unit whose date of commencement of continuous service is the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointment is also the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to age, the older being the senior.” Under Sub-rule (2), if the continuous service is the same, seniority will have to be decided with reference to the date of first appointment. Sub-rule (2) as now remaining, was added as per G.O. (P) No. 112/78/G.Edn. dated 22.8.1978. Herein, since the date of appointment as approved in respect of the six U.P.S.As is 1.6.1998, the seniority has been finalized with reference to age, as noticed already. 32. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, submitted that none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners will support the above plea. 33. dated 22.8.1978. Herein, since the date of appointment as approved in respect of the six U.P.S.As is 1.6.1998, the seniority has been finalized with reference to age, as noticed already. 32. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, submitted that none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners will support the above plea. 33. First I will examine the decisions relied upon the Shri James Vincent. K.P. Mathiri v. State of Kerala (1973 KLT 284) is by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the term “ qualified service” in Rule 37 came up for interpretation. In para 2, it was held thus: “In view of the provision in R.37 the continuous service that can be counted for reckoning seniority must be “qualified service”. This means that it must be service after the acquisition by the teacher of the prescribed qualifications for the particular post in the grade in any unit. The further question that arises is whether service which was qualified according to the rules that were in force before the Kerala Education Rules. This is not intended by the rules, particularly so in view of the provision in R.39 which says that the staff list shall be prepared with reference to the position obtaining on the date on which the school became an aided school under the Kerala Education Act, 1958. It is not disputed that having regard to the provision in R.39 “qualified service” for a period before the rules came into force will have to be determined with reference to the rules that were in existence before the Rules came into force.” The facts of the case show that the fifth respondent therein was appointed on 2.6.1945 and obtained training qualification in 1951. The question was whether this can be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of Rule 37. The unamended Rule 37 came up for consideration. The question was whether this can be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of Rule 37. The unamended Rule 37 came up for consideration. Rule 52 of Cochin Education Code, 1921 was also considered and the main part of the rule provides as follows: “No person shall be permitted to teach in any school in the State unless he possesses the qualifications herein prescribed and holds a licence granted by the Director in Form No. VII.” Exception 3 therein provides as follows: “Exception 3 :- Persons possessing the requisite general qualifications, but not the professional qualifications, may be permitted to teach in schools on their obtaining a temporary permit from the Director. Such temporary permits will be valid only for one year after completion of the training course in the case of graduate teachers and for three years after completion of the training course in the case of non-graduate teachers and will become automatically void on the expiry of the period, before which the holders should get themselves professionally qualified.” Therefore, rule 37 was interpreted in the light of Rule 52 of Cochin Education Code, as Exception 3 therein provided for issuing temporary permits for appointment of teachers having general qualification. Para 4 of the judgment will show that for persons who have obtained such permission under Exception 3, only general qualifications alone were required. Therefore, the qualified service of the fifth respondent with reference to the Cochin Education Code was recognized by the Bench. Accordingly, the claim of the fifth respondent was accepted. There is nothing parallel to the same herein, as the facts are different. 34. The next decision is that of a learned Single Judge in Jony’s case (1980 KLT 734). Therein , the continuous appointment of the teachers was from 2.6.1975. The fifth respondent claimed seniority, as she was older in age, which can confer seniority, going by Rule 37 (2). The petitioner had first appointment on 23.9.1974 an the fifth respondent also had another appointment on 15.10.1974. Both of them were relieved on 31.3.1975 in terms of Rule 49 of Chapter XIV – A K.E.R. and subsequently reappointed on 2.6.1975. The contention raised was that based on the initial appointment from 23.9.1974 the petitioner was entitled for seniority. This contention was accepted by the learned Singly Judge. Both of them were relieved on 31.3.1975 in terms of Rule 49 of Chapter XIV – A K.E.R. and subsequently reappointed on 2.6.1975. The contention raised was that based on the initial appointment from 23.9.1974 the petitioner was entitled for seniority. This contention was accepted by the learned Singly Judge. It was held thus in para 5 as follows: In the absence of any clear answer to the question as to what happens when two persons have the same length of continuous service, but the first appointment of one of them fell on an earlier date, has to be decided with reference to the other provision under the rules. Counsel for the petitioner is justified seeking guidance from R. 51 A. That meaning is not only consistent with the clarification that has been adopted by the subsequent amendment of R. 37 (2) but it is also in accordance with the principle of justice and equity. He who was first appointed must be senior, notwithstanding the break in service by reason of R.49. The seniority cannot therefore be decided with reference to age when the first appointment of the petitioner was earlier that that of the 5th respondent. Herein also, it can be seen that both of them were relieved under Rule 49 after the initial appointment. The said decision also therefore is rendered on different set of facts. 35. The next one is Devaki Amma’s case (1989 (2) KLJ 256). It was held in para 4 while interpreting Rule 37, as follows: “It is obvious that Sub rule (1) refers only to qualified service and sub rule (2) refers to the date of commencement of continuous service as decisive of seniority. If more teachers than one has the same date of commencement of continuous service, seniority has to be decided with reference to the date of first appointment. Only if the date of first appointment also is the same, seniority has to be determined with reference to age, older being the senior. In the present case, the Government found that the date of commencement of continuous service is the same in the case of the petitioner and the 6th respondent. It then found that among them, the 6th respondent has the earliest date of first appointment and therefore held her to be senior. In the present case, the Government found that the date of commencement of continuous service is the same in the case of the petitioner and the 6th respondent. It then found that among them, the 6th respondent has the earliest date of first appointment and therefore held her to be senior. Government also decided that it was not necessary to go into the question of age since the date of first appointment was not the same. That view is fully supported by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.A. 376 of 1988.” The emphasis laid by Shri James Vincent is that this court recognized the fact that qualified service will count for seniority. 36. Shri. N. Sugathan submitted that the facts of the case will show that there the petitioner had untrained service which was approved, which is the same way in which the sixth respondent was also appointed. Para 2 of the judgment will show that the petitioner commenced service as an untrained Graduate teacher in the school on 17.6.1961 and the sixth respondent on 18.7.1960. It is mentioned that untrained service of both were duly approved. Rule 5 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. as it remained prior to 4.7.1972 provided that “unqualified teachers appointed under Rule 2 and who acquired the prescribed qualifications subsequently shall have preference for appointments to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency.” Accordingly, the learned Judge was of the view that the sixth respondent had earlier date of first appointment. The continuous qualified service was from the same date and in the light of the above aspects, this court had recognized the claim for seniority based on the first appointment, by relying upon the principles stated in the judgment in W.A. No. 376/1988. The appointment of the sixth respondent as well as the petitioner for the earlier periods were approved, unlike the case herein. 37. In Vijayamma’s case (1998 (1) KLT 706), it was held as follows in para 5: “as per 37 (1) Chapter XIV-A of the Ruels seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified, for the post. 37. In Vijayamma’s case (1998 (1) KLT 706), it was held as follows in para 5: “as per 37 (1) Chapter XIV-A of the Ruels seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified, for the post. In the case of teachers, in the same grade in the same unit whose date of commencement of continuous service is the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointment is also the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to age, the older being the senior.” Therein, the petitioner had continuous service as HSA from 18.6.1962, whereas respondents 5 and 6 had service prior to 18.6.1962. In para 6 of the judgment, it is stated as follows: “In this case, the petitioner had no service before 18.6.1962, whereas respondents 5 and 6 have prior approved service and as such they are seniors to the petitioners.” It is in that context it was held that since the continuous qualified service of petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are being the same, their inter-se seniority has to be determined with reference to the date of first appointment. The same is also therefore distinguishable on the facts of this case. 38. In Poornima’s case (2005 (3) KLT 502), it was held that for the purpose of Rule 51A, what is relevant is the date of first appointment and not the date on which the appointment is approved. 22.12.1999 and 22.6.2000 were the dates of first appointment of 7th respondent and petitioner respectively. Orders of approval of the petitioner was earlier. It was thus held that what is relevant is not the date of the order of approval. Therein also, there were valid order of approval, unlike the present case. 39. The last of the judgments relied upon in this context by Shri James Vincent, is that of a Division Bench of this court in Balakrishnan v. A.E.O., Vadakara (2005 (4) KLT 64), wherein Rule 37 (2) of Chapter XIV- A K.E.R. came up for consideration. The Division Bench was of the view that while determining the preference between the two who are having the same date of qualified continuous service, the earlier first appointment need not be qualified appointment. The Division Bench was of the view that while determining the preference between the two who are having the same date of qualified continuous service, the earlier first appointment need not be qualified appointment. In para 5 of the judgment this principle was explained thus: “Sub-r (1) cannot answer the issue because both of them commence the qualified continuous service on the same date. Necessarily we have to step over to sub-r (2) which provides that the seniority of such incumbents commencing continuos qualified service on the same day shall be reckoned “with reference to the date of first appointment”: obviously meaning earlier temporary appointment, which may either qualified or under qualified. It is petinent to note sub-r(1) which stipulates commencement of continuous service “provided he is qualified for the post.” Commencement of continuous service shall be thus qualified continuous service. But sub-r(2) while mentioning “the date of first appointment” as the order to reckon seniority among the persons having the same date of continuance service, the word ‘qualified’ is not made mention of. What is mentioned in sub-r(2) is not “first qualified appointment” but only “first appointment” Necessarily, that is a conscious omission by the legislature, which we cannot fill up. We cannot therefore accept the contention that while determining the preference between the two or more persons, who are having the same date of qualified continuous service, the earlier first appointment also shall be qualified appointment, because several orders permitted appointment of under qualified hands as teachers in the absence of fully qualified hands.” In fact it was a case where there was a prior unqualified service and this Court clearly noticed the existence of several orders which permitted appointment of under-qualified hands as teachers in the absence of fully qualified hands. Therefore, it is in that context the said principle was laid down. Herein, the issue is totally different. It is not a case where Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy were having any unqualified or underqualified appointment. As far as they are concerned, their appointment prior to 1.6.1998 is unapproved. Therefore, the dictum laid down in the said judgment also will not apply here. 40. The question therefore is whether the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 21571/2011, Viz. Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy are entitled for seniority based on their earlier appointments which remained unapproved. As far as they are concerned, their appointment prior to 1.6.1998 is unapproved. Therefore, the dictum laid down in the said judgment also will not apply here. 40. The question therefore is whether the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 21571/2011, Viz. Smt. Alphonsa and Smt. Judy are entitled for seniority based on their earlier appointments which remained unapproved. Shri Sugathan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents opposed the said contention on the plea that unapproved service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of seniority. In that context, my attention was invited to the relevant rules of Chapter XIV-A KER. Shri Sugathan relied upon various decisions of this court also in that regard. 41. The provisions of Rule 37 (1) and (2) may come into play if there is unqualified service, but if such service is unapproved, then it cannot be recognized for seniority. In fact, in an earlier decision of this Court in Sadasivan v. R.D.D and others (1976 KLN page 37, C. No. 34), while interpreting Rule 5 of Chapter XIV A KER the legal position was laid down thus: “An unqualified teacher appointed under Rule 2 Chapter XIV A of the Rules, but not approved cannot claim the benefit of rule 5 Chapter XIV A. Even thought it is not stated in Rule 5 that the appointment referred to therein must be an approved appointment, it has to be read in to the rule. Otherwise the result will be utter confusion. Even if there is not vacancy a manager may make an appointment anticipating the claims of thrown out hands.” Therefore, even in respect of an unqualified teacher, the appointment should be approved and this court was of the view that the same will have to be read into the rule. This principle can profitably be applied herein also. Otherwise, a Manager can resort to different modes of appointments, even in the absence of established vacancies. 42. I shall now refer to the decisions relied on by Shri N. Sugathan, section 9 of the Kerala Education Act which makes the government liable to pay salary of all teachers in aided schools, was interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. B.C. Elsy (1987 (2) KLT 882) wherein the Full Bench was of the view that the liability imposed on the state to pay salary will be to approved teachers. In paragraphs 6 and 7 the legal position was explained thus: “A teacher appointed by the Manager does not become an employee of the state government. The state government provides grants to aided schools and payment of salary to approved teachers of the aided schools is one form of such aid. S.(1) of the Act which provides that the Government shall pay the salary of all teachers in aided schools direct or through the Headmaster of the school, only imposes a statutory liability on the state government to pay salary to the teachers of the aided schools. This is not in recognition of any pre-existing right of such teachers against the Government. The liability imposed is only to pay salary to the approved teachers.” It was further held that “a teacher whose claim for re-appointment was overlooked by the Manager of an aided school by appointing somebody else in that vacancy, is not entitled to claim any amount from the state government for the period during which he was deprived of re-appointment by the wrongful action of the Manager.” Therefore, the unapproved appointment cannot cast any liability on the state for payment salary to the teachers. If the argument of the petitioners are accepted, even such unapproved service which does not entitle the teachers for payment of salary, can be considered for seniority for the purpose of Rule 37 (2). The interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon various decisions including Balakrishnan’s case (2005 (4) KLT 64) which I have already discussed above, would show that therein the service is unqualified service and not unapproved service. In fact rules 2,5 and 7 of Chapter XIV_A KER are also therefore in considering the question. Rule 2 states as follows: “2. Appointment of qualified hands shall be deemed acting till they are confirmed.” Rule 5 provides as follows: “Unqualified teachers appointed after 2.2.65 and who acquire the prescribed qualification shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency. Note:- (1) If more than one person acquire the prescribed qualifications, preference as among them shall be given to the person who acquired the qualification earliest. If more than one person acquired the prescribed qualification on the same date, the person with the earliest date of first appointment as an unqualified hand, shall be preferred. Note:- (1) If more than one person acquire the prescribed qualifications, preference as among them shall be given to the person who acquired the qualification earliest. If more than one person acquired the prescribed qualification on the same date, the person with the earliest date of first appointment as an unqualified hand, shall be preferred. (2) If there are claimants under this rule and rule 51A, preference shall be given to those coming under rule 51-A.” The unamended Rule 2 provided that “appointment of unqualified teachers made under Rule 2 (1) and 2 A of Chapter XXI shall be deemed as acting till they are confirmed.” 43. Next we will have to come to Rule 7 which states as follows: “7. As soon as a teacher is appointed in a school, the Manager shall immediately issue an appointment order to the teacher in Form 27 and the appointment shall be effective from the date on which the teacher is admitted to duty, provided the appointment is duly approved.” Therefore, once approval is granted, it will relate back to the date on which the teacher is admitted to duty. This position also cannot be of any doubt. Therefore, for an appointment to be effective, there shall be an approval under Rule 7 and such approval alone will entitle the teacher to get salary under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, any valid appointment should be with approval and the procedure for grant of approval is evident from Rule 8 of Chapter XIV – A, whereby the Manager is required to forward the appointment order along with the documents, within a specified time. The contention that the unapproved service can therefore count for seniority, cannot be accepted. 44. Shri Sugathan heavily relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Pavithran v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 20 FB) and that of a learned single judge in Narayanan v.Rent controller (1988 (2) KLT 74) to contend for the position that the whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless it is challenged within a prescribed time limit the right will be lost. In Narayanan’s case (1988 (2) KLT 74), section 20 of the Rent control act came up for consideration. In Narayanan’s case (1988 (2) KLT 74), section 20 of the Rent control act came up for consideration. It was held that even though there is no time limit prescribed to exercise the power under section 20, the revisional power has to be invoked within 90 days. It was held that “any delay thereafter has to be explained satisfactorily before the court can be requested to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. This is relied upon to highlight the fact that Smt. Judy did not challenge the non approval for nearly 9 years. 45. The Full Bench in Pavitharan’s case (1009 (4) KLT 20-FB), was considering a case where both parties had unqualified but approved service and as regards the sixth respondent, his claim for seniority was found against by the District Educational Officer as per Ext. P3 order dated 15.6.1995 which was never challenged. After 10 years, he filed a representation before the Assistant Educational Officer claiming seniority. The Full Bench, after referring Rule 37 (1) and (2) of Chapter XIV-A KER held in para 8 thus: “8. Whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final and the person, affected by it, will also be bound by it. It is a well settled principle in Administrative Law that, there are no void orders in absolute sense in administrative matters. There are only voidable orders. Unless a person aggrieved takes recourse to the appropriate remedy at the appropriate time, even an illegal order will be treated as valid and binding …………………………………………………………… We notice that Exts. P2 and P3 orders were passed by competent statutory authorities. They could have granted the reliefs sought by the sixth respondent, but, they have declined to do that. The sixth respondent has not chosen to challenge those order before the higher forum or this court and as mentioned earlier, he allowed them to become final. Therefore, those orders are to be treated as valid. They cannot be ignored or treated as void ab initio and therefore, of no effect now. It is a well settled principle in service jurisprudence that, a person who enjoyed a seniority position for quite some time is entitled to sit back. The seniority position shall not, normally, be disturbed lightly. Therefore, those orders are to be treated as valid. They cannot be ignored or treated as void ab initio and therefore, of no effect now. It is a well settled principle in service jurisprudence that, a person who enjoyed a seniority position for quite some time is entitled to sit back. The seniority position shall not, normally, be disturbed lightly. The said position is covered by several decisions of this court and also the Apex court. Cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in the interest of administration or public interest to allow a person, who slept over his right, to rake up a stale claim, tinker with the seniority list and demoralize other members of the service. We find no reason not to apply the above principle applicable to members of public service, to the persons working in aided schools governed by the KER also. There cannot be any separate principle for such schools concerning seniority, sit back etc. in view of the above position, we are of the view that Ext. R6 (a) judgment does not lay down the correct legal position. We overrule the said decision. We uphold the view taken by the Division Bench in Usha Devi’s case (supra), as laying down the correct legal position.” Therefore, it can be seen that the petitioners Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy did not challenge the rejection of approval orders at the right point of time. As far as Smt. Swarnamma is concerned, Ext. P13 order produced in W.P. (C) No. 236/2012 will show that she was granted approval as HAS. Only from 1.6.1998 and that order was never challenged by her to raise any claim for approval for an earlier period. The proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, produced as Ext.P11 therein dated 23.5.1996, will show that she was receiving salary in the lower scale of UPSA from 11/1993. The said order also will show that the two teachers, viz. Smt. P.S. Sasikala and Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel were retrenched in 1991-92 as there was a fall of two divisions. They became Rule 51 A claimants for future appointments. They were not recalled even in 1992-93 when two posts were allowed. 46. The said order also will show that the two teachers, viz. Smt. P.S. Sasikala and Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel were retrenched in 1991-92 as there was a fall of two divisions. They became Rule 51 A claimants for future appointments. They were not recalled even in 1992-93 when two posts were allowed. 46. After examining all these aspects, it can be seen that the Director of Public Instruction issued a direction for payment of salary in the lower scale of pay to Smt. Swarnamma, by Ext. P11. These proceedings have become final. As held by the Full Bench in Pavithrans case (2009 (4) KLT 20-FB), none of the orders were challenged by the parties at the appropriate time. In that view of the matter also, the unapproved service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of seniority. 47. It is evident from the various proceedings that from 1992093 to 1997-98 the Manager has made several appointments as HAS and UPSA. None of them were approved. The protected hands of the same school, vix. Smt. P.S. Sasikala and Shri C.R. Cleetus Daniel had to be recalled and finally they were recalled only in the 1997-98 and thus the approval of Smt. Swarnamma and six UPSAs. Were granted only from 1997-98 after the protected hands were recalled. This is clear from the reports produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the sixth respondent in W.P. (C) No. 21571/2011. in fact, in Ext. R6 (i) petition filed before the Director of Public Instruction by the petitioners, they admit the fact that during 1995-96 three vacancies were there in the post of HAS and protected hand in H.A.S (Maths) and H.A.S (NS) were not recalled. 48. In that view of the matter, the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 31102/2010, 21571/2011, 32508/2011 and 236/2012 are not entitled to succeed in the writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. 49. W.P. (C) No. 37103/2010 is allowed, and any arrears of salary remaining unpaid will be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.