JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P11, P21 and P24 orders of the 1st, 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively and seeking a declaration that the 5th respondent is not duly appointed in the 6th respondent School and seeking consequential orders of recovery of the amounts drawn by the 5th respondent as salary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 as also the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 3. It is submitted that the school is jointly owned by the petitioner and her siblings. There was a dispute regarding the ownership and manager-ship of the school. The said dispute was repeatedly raised before the educational authorities, and later, before this Court. It is submitted that the 5th respondent had been appointed as UPSA in the school by Exhibit P7 appointment order dated 30.5.2007. However, by Exhibit P8, the 4th respondent had withdrawn the said appointment, since the dispute regarding the management was pending before this Court on that date. By Exhibit P9 order, the submission made by the 4th respondent herein that the order of appointment had been withdrawn and the matter was communicated to the 5th respondent was also taken note of by this Court. Later, by Exhibit P10 judgment, the writ petition was disposed of directing consideration of the appeal against the order of approval of Manager by the 1st respondent afresh. As regards the appointment of the 5th respondent herein, on 30.5.2007, it was recorded that the appointment was withdrawn and the request by the Counsel that the management may be permitted to revive the said appointment in the changed circumstances was also noticed. Thereafter, it was directed that the management can take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law and it can be brought to the notice of the 1st respondent at the time when the matter is taken up for consideration as directed above. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with the direction to the 1st respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Thalassery North to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 on merits within two weeks after hearing the petitioner and all persons likely to be affected by any order that may be passed. 4. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with the direction to the 1st respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Thalassery North to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 on merits within two weeks after hearing the petitioner and all persons likely to be affected by any order that may be passed. 4. It is submitted that Exhibit P4 was thereafter taken into consideration by the Assistant Educational Officer and orders were passed, which were again subject matter of challenge. It is further submitted that the dispute with regard to management has thereafter been settled between the parties. However, the challenge raised in this writ petition is with regard to the approval of appointment of the 5th respondent by Exhibit P11 proceedings. It is stated that Exhibit P11 is an appointment order issued on 30.5.2007 which had been withdrawn by the Manager. Thereafter, the very same appointment order was again forwarded for approval much later than the time granted for the forwarding of the proposal for approval of appointment and an order was passed on 19.9.2008approving the petitioner's appointment as probationary teacher with effect from 6.8.2007 (the date of re- engagement). It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no fresh proposal for approval of appointment and the approval granted on an appointment order which had already been recalled was per se illegal. 5. Pursuant to orders issued by this Court, the petitioner's revision against the order approving appointment was considered by the Government and Exhibit P24 order was issued after hearing all concerned, stating that by Exhibit P10, this Court had allowed consideration of the issue of approval of appointment of the 5th respondent. It is stated that the Manager had resubmitted the proposal for approval of the 5th respondent's appointment with an order dated 6.8.2007 relying on Exhibit P10 judgment dated 1.8.2007. Since the proposal had been resubmitted pursuant to the implied permission granted by this Court in Exhibit P10 judgment, the Assistant Educational Officer had taken up the proposal and approved the same with effect from 6.8.2007. 6. Since the proposal had been resubmitted pursuant to the implied permission granted by this Court in Exhibit P10 judgment, the Assistant Educational Officer had taken up the proposal and approved the same with effect from 6.8.2007. 6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that there was no irregularity whatsoever in the forwarding of the proposal for approval and in the grant of approval, since it was on the permission which can be clearly gathered from Exhibit P10 that the said actions were taken by the Manager and the A.E.O. 7. I have considered the contentions in detail. It is clear that the withdrawal of appointment of the 5th respondent had been recorded by this Court on 13.6.2007. The appointment had been made on 30.5.2007. In Exhibit P10, a request made by the 3rd respondent for revival of appointment of the 5th respondent was also adverted to. Relevant portion of Exhibit P10 reads as follows: "6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the management can take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law and it can be brought to the notice of the first respondent at the time when the matter is taken up for consideration as directed above. Respondent No. 1 can take a decision on that issue also." 8. It is clear that on the basis of the said observation contained in Exhibit P10 judgment that Exhibit P11 order of approval was rendered, that too, with effect from 6.8.2007 when the 5th respondent was permitted to rejoin duty. 9. After considering the contents of Exhibit P10 as well as the orders under challenge, I am of the opinion that there is no patent illegality or irregularity in the approval of appointment of the 5th respondent which had been impliedly permitted by Exhibit P10 judgment of this Court. Since Exhibit P10 has become final, I find that the existence of a management dispute between the owners of the property in question at the time of appointment cannot prejudice the rights of a qualified teacher appointed for approval and for monetary benefits. In the above view of the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.