JUDGMENT : Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P4 orders directing cancellation of approval granted for the appointment of petitioner as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) from 23.02.1999 and further directing recovery of salary paid to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed in a regular resignation vacancy as LPSA in an aided school with effect from 23.02.1999. The appointment was approved from 23.02.1999 to 31.03.1999 and from 01.06.1999 to 14.07.1999. It is submitted that there was fall in students strength and in the staff fixation order for the year 1999-2000, one post of LPSA was reduced. Consequently, petitioner was retrenched on 14.07.1999. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal was preferred by the Manager against staff fixation order for the year 1999-2000 and the petitioner was held to be eligible to continue, invoking 1:40 ratio since the petitioner had approved service with effect from 23.02.1999. However, by Ext.P3 order dated 25.09.2013, on the basis of Local Audit Report of the accounts of aided L.P/U.P schools, Government passed an order stating that the petitioner had been appointed on 23.02.1999 and had worked only 37 days in the academic year and was therefore not eligible for getting approval of scale of pay based on Rule 7A of Chapter XIVA KER. It is further stated that retention under 1:40 ratio is applicable only to retain a teacher who had approved service in the previous year. It is therefore held that since the petitioner was ineligible for approval during 1998-1999, her retention during next academic year is also irregular. By Ext.P4 proceedings, the Assistant Educational Officer had taken steps pursuant to the Government Order to cancel the appointment and to recover the salary already paid. These orders are under challenge. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner by judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. Sneha Cheriyan (2013 (1) KLT 755 (SC)) and of this Court in Nair Service Society vs. State of Kerala (2013 (4) KLT 921) as well as earlier decision of this Court in Director of Public Instructions vs. Mini Joseph ( 2009 (1) KLT 923 ). In Nair Service Society vs. State of Kerala (2013 (4) KLT 921), learned Single Judge of this Court, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sneha Cheriyan's case (supra), held that restriction contained in Rule 7A of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules would apply only to leave vacancies and not to regular appointments. It was held that regular appointments were never sought to be governed by the amendments to Rule 7A and Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER. Therefore, the Government Order restricting approval of appointments in vacancies of duration of less than a particular period would have no application to appointments in regular vacancies which were made during the course of the academic year. 5. The petitioner's appointment was in a retirement vacancy. The said appointment, though made on 23.02.1999 was against a substantive resignation vacancy which evidently had a duration of more than one academic year. In the above view of the matter, restriction relating to period of appointment would have no application in the petitioner's case. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to approval of her appointment with effect from 23.02.1999 against retirement vacancy. She would therefore be entitled to continue in the next academic year also, on applying the 1:40 teacher student ratio. It is also trite law that approval of appointment cannot be cancelled on the basis of objections raised in audit. Exts.P3 and P4 orders are therefore set aside. It is directed that the petitioner will be granted the benefit of Ext.P1 order of approval as well as order passed by the Joint Director of Public Instructions on 26.09.2001 in the appeal against staff fixation in respect of the year 1999-2000. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to approval of appointment and also to consequential benefits arising on the basis of Ext.P1 as well as orders in appeal referred to above. Consequential orders shall be passed by the 4th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All consequential arrears shall also be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.