JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed by the fifth respondent-Manager, as full time Menial on 23.10.2019 against a regular vacancy as per Ext.P1. The proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner was submitted before the fourth respondent as early as on 23.10.2019 and there is no objection against the proposal. The staff fixation proceedings issued by the fourth respondent in respect of the school for the year 2019-2020 vindicates that the petitioner has been appointed against duly sanctioned posts as evidenced by Ext.P3. 2. The petitioner laments that proposal is kept pending indefinitely by the fourth respondent, on the specious plea that the icon of the Samanwaya software, which is used for granting approval of appointments has become dysfunctional. 3. The petitioner has averred that, approval of appointments are governed by the Kerala Education Act and the Rules formulated thereunder. Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules make it obligatory on the part of the Educational Authority to consider an application for approval, not later than 30 days from the date receipt of the appointment order and the requisite documents. 4. The petitioner has contended that software was introduced only for the purpose of expeditious disposal of cases for approval of appointments in aided school, but now the software is being used as tool to procrastinate approval of appointments within the mandatory statutory time period. Hence the petitioner, inter-alia, seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment and grant her arrears of salary forthwith. 5. Heard Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the application for approval of appointment is pending consideration before the fourth respondent from October 2019 onwards. The sole intention of the respondents is to delay the approval of the appointment, which is unjust and arbitrary. The respondents are deliberately not taking steps to rectify the software. The respondents 1 to 4 can normally process the application. The inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 is causing severe hardship and difficulties to the petitioner. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, on instructions, argued that the software was installed in all the Educational Offices in the State in order to infuse uniformity and expedite appointments. The inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 is causing severe hardship and difficulties to the petitioner. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, on instructions, argued that the software was installed in all the Educational Offices in the State in order to infuse uniformity and expedite appointments. Unfortunately, a technical snag has made the software dysfunctional, but earnest measures are being made to restore the software. This is the sole reason that appointment could not be approved. Nevertheless, the respondents 1 and 4 will take a decision on the application for approval of appointment within a period of one month from today. The writ petition can be disposed of on the above said undertaking. 8. Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules reads thus: The Educational Officer on receipt of the appointment order and other records mentioned in sub-rule (1) may approve the appointment if it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and orders issued by the Government or the Director from time to time. After approval one copy shall be forwarded by the Educational Officer to the teacher through the Manager and another copy forwarded to the Manager to be filled in the school records. The approval may be given as expeditiously as possible (at any rate not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the appointment order and other documents mentioned in sub-rule (1). 9. The above Rule makes it mandatory for the respondents 1 to 4 to consider an application for approval of an appointment within a period of not less than 30 days from the date of the appointment order. 10. It is undisputed by the respondents 1 to 4, that the application for approval of the petitioner was received by them as early as in October, 2019. The plea of the respondents 1 to 4 that the software got dysfunctional, which precluded them from processing the appointment does not appeal to this Court or inspires confidence. Whether the software is functional or not, is an internal arrangement of the respondents 1 to 4. The software which was developed for the expeditious consideration of appointments, cannot be used as a defence to bye-pass the statutory mandate under Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIV of KER. Whether the software is functional or not, is an internal arrangement of the respondents 1 to 4. The software which was developed for the expeditious consideration of appointments, cannot be used as a defence to bye-pass the statutory mandate under Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIV of KER. The respondents are strictly bound to adhere to time frame fixed in the statute, in view of the language used in the Rule. 11. In the result, I allow this writ petition in view of Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIV A of the Rules and recording the undertaking of the learned Senior Government Pleader, on the basis of the undertaking made by the respondents 1 to 4 that the respondents 1 to 4 shall take a decision on the application for approval of the appointment of the petitioner within a period of one month from today. 12. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.