JUDGMENT : The prayers in this writ petition are as follows: (i) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P2 to P11 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order; (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Nilambur to approve the appointment of the petitioner as U.P.S.A w.e.f. 2-6-2005 and grant all consequential benefits including the salary and allowances forthwith. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that she was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in a retirement vacancy in the 5th respondent's school on 02.06.2005. Her appointment was not approved on the ground that protected teachers were not appointed in the school. It is submitted that the petitioner was shifted to a leave vacancy which arose from 01.10.2007 to 13.07.2012 and her appointment in the leave vacancy was approved from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2008 on daily wages and from 02.06.2008 to 13.07.2012 on scale of pay. Later, on 30.07.2012, petitioner was appointed in regular vacancy and her appointment was approved. 3. The claim raised in this writ petition is with regard to approval of appointment of the petitioner as Upper Primary School Assistant with effect from 02.06.2005 in regular vacancy. The petitioner contends that the rejection of approval on the ground that no protected teachers had been appointed cannot hold good in view of the judgment of this Court in Nadeera vs. State of Kerala ( 2011 (3) KLT 790 ) which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Nadeera ( 2013 (2) KLT 88 ). It is submitted that since no list of protected teachers had been made available by the Deputy Director of Education to the Manager of the school in question, the Manager was under no obligation to appoint a protected teacher. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is entitled to approval of appointment as UPSA with effect from 02.06.2005, the date of her appointment. 4. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is entitled to approval of appointment as UPSA with effect from 02.06.2005, the date of her appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2547/2009 and W.P.(C) No.19203/2015 to contend that other teachers who were similarly situated and who had been appointed in regular vacancy in the same school had been held to be entitled to approval by this Court on the strength of the decision of the Division Bench in Nadeera's case (supra). 5. Considering the contentions and the pleadings and the documents produced in this case, I am convinced that there is no justification in refusing to approve appointment of the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2005. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to approve appointment of the petitioner as UPSA with effect from 02.06.2005 and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.