JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. These writ appeals are filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , by the Manager of Varam UP School, P.O. Varam, Kannur District, who is one of the respondents in the writ petitions such as W.P.(C)Nos.7089 of 2016, 24780 of 2012, 16061 of 2013 and 19893 of 2015, challenging the common judgment dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. 2. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred in this judgment as they were referred in the impugned judgment as well as in W.A.No.1820 of 2024, unless otherwise stated. 3. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.19893 of 2015 were appointed in the School managed by the appellant/5 th respondent as UPSA on 17.07.2007 against ‘anticipated vacancies’. However, the authorities refused to approve the appointments, since it was made without vacancy. Subsequently, in the year 2008-2009, two promotion vacancies arose in the School. But in those vacancies, the appellant/Manager appointed two other persons, namely, Shyna K.P. and Divya K., on 02.06.2008 and 03.06.2008, respectively. The said Shyna K.P. and Divya K. are the joint petitioners in W.P.(C)No.7089 of 2016. Apart from that, the sole petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24780 of 2012 is Shyna K.P., and the sole petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16061 of 2013 is Divya K. 3.1. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.19893 of 2015 challenged the approval order of Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. before the District Educational Officer. By Ext.P4 order dated 25.01.2012, the District Educational Officer required Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. to show cause why their appointment shall not be cancelled and required the Manager to show cause why action should not be taken against him for violation of Government Orders. Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. challenged Ext.P4 order before the Government. The petitioners also challenged the same since the order did not contain any directions with regard to their appointments. After hearing the parties, the Government issued Ext.P5 order dated 13.08.2012, rejecting the claim of Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. and directed Ext.P4 provisional order to be confirmed. The revision petitions filed by the petitioners were also allowed as per Ext.P6 order dated 16.08.2012, and the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to review and revise the seniority of the teachers and grant approval on that basis. 3.2. The revision petitions filed by the petitioners were also allowed as per Ext.P6 order dated 16.08.2012, and the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to review and revise the seniority of the teachers and grant approval on that basis. 3.2. Thereafter, the Additional Director issued Ext.P8 order dated 25.03.2013, cancelling the appointments of Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. with effect from 02.06.2008 and 03.06.2008, respectively. Subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer also issued Ext.P9 order dated 29.03.2013, but without accommodating the petitioners in the available vacancies of the year 2008-2009. The petitioners then preferred statutory appeals before the District Educational Officer. Since the District Educational Officer failed to consider the appeals, the petitioners approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.4817 of 2014, and by Ext.P11 judgment dated 18.02.2014, this Court directed the District Educational Officer to dispose of the appeals within a time frame. By Ext.P12 order dated 02.06.2014, the District Educational Officer directed the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioners with effect from 02.06.2008. Since there was reduction of one post of UPSA in the year 2009-2010, the approval of the 3 rd petitioner is restricted to 14.07.2009. 3.3. The Manager failed to implement Ext.P12 order, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners again moved Ext.P13 joint representation dated 21.08.2014 before the Assistant Educational Officer. Though the Assistant Educational Officer, vide letter dated 22.09.2014, directed the Manager to forward the proposal of appointment of the petitioners forthwith, no action was followed. The petitioners again filed W.P.(C)No.32117 of 2014 before this Court, seeking appropriate reliefs. By Ext.P14 judgment dated 19.01.2015, this Court disposed of that writ petition directing the Manager to submit proposals with further direction to the Assistant Educational Officer to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioners. Pursuant to the direction in Ext.P14 judgment, the Assistant Educational Officer issued Exts.P15 to P17 orders dated 09.03.2015 approving the appointment of petitioners with effect from 02.06.2008. However, Exts.P15 to P17 orders directed that the question of payment of arrears shall be decided on obtaining clarification from the Government/Director of Public Instructions. Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. were paid salary by the Government, consequent on their approval of appointment. The petitioners then moved the Government with Ext.P18 representation dated 04.04.2015. However, Exts.P15 to P17 orders directed that the question of payment of arrears shall be decided on obtaining clarification from the Government/Director of Public Instructions. Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. were paid salary by the Government, consequent on their approval of appointment. The petitioners then moved the Government with Ext.P18 representation dated 04.04.2015. Since no action was followed, the petitioners approached this Court with Writ Petition No.19893 of 2015 with the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash Exhibits P15 to P17 to the extent it defer payment of arrears of salary and limiting the period of approval of appointment of third petitioner till 14.07.2009. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondents to release salary forthwith and also to pay arrears in terms of approval of appointment made as per Exhibits P15, P16 and P17 within a time limit.” 4. In the other writ petitions, Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. challenged the orders deferring payments of salaries to them and also rejecting their claim in the revision petition by the Government. 5. The issue involved in the writ petitions is as to the liability to pay salary to the petitioners, for the period the Government paid salary to Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K., which was later overlapped by the appointment of the petitioners by Exts.P15 to P17 orders. By the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2024, the learned Single Judge found that since the Manager has made the appointments, flouting the relevant orders, the burden is upon the Manager to pay the salary to the petitioners. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in all the writ appeals, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19893 of 2015 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in the other three writ petitions, who are the party respondents in these writ appeals. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the writ petitions, the petitioners have not chosen any relief against the appellant/Manager. The appellant did not choose to file a counter affidavit for the reason that there is no claim by the teachers against the Manager. The petitioners have been working in the School, and the direction to recover the monetary benefits granted to them from the Manager is not justifiable. The learned Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction while deciding the issue. The appellant did not choose to file a counter affidavit for the reason that there is no claim by the teachers against the Manager. The petitioners have been working in the School, and the direction to recover the monetary benefits granted to them from the Manager is not justifiable. The learned Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction while deciding the issue. The relief granted was by exceeding the scope of the writ petition, and even without any prayer, relief has been granted by fastening the liability on the Manager. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the Government paid the salary to Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K., whose appointments were made by the appellant Manager, overlooking the claim of the petitioners. It is over and above the vacancy; the appointments were effected by the Manager, and hence the Government is entitled to recover it from the Manager. 9. The learned counsel appearing for Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. submitted that they have also worked in the School during the relevant period in approved posts, and hence, the salary cannot be recovered from them. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, as well as Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. had worked in the School during the relevant period. Since the appointment of Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. was approved, the Government paid their salary. But as per Exts.P15 to P17 orders, the appointment of the petitioners was ordered to be approved from June 2008, and their salary remained unpaid. As found by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Manager made appointments flouting the relevant orders or in other words, overlooking the claim of the petitioners when the vacancies arose. Naturally, it is the petitioners who ought to have been accommodated in those posts, and instead, the Manager appointed two new persons, such as Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K. 11. Since the Manager has effected the appointments to the non-existing post, and his action caused the approval of the appointments of Smt.Shyna K.P. and Smt.Divya K., and payment of salary to them by the Government, the Government cannot be directed to suffer the expenses from the Public Exchequer. 12. In that circumstance, the learned Single Judge directed to recover the salary excessively paid, from the appellant-Manager through Revenue Recovery Proceedings and disburse the same to the petitioners. 12. In that circumstance, the learned Single Judge directed to recover the salary excessively paid, from the appellant-Manager through Revenue Recovery Proceedings and disburse the same to the petitioners. As found by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Manager did not effectively contest the writ petitions. Though he says that he did not contest the writ petitions since there was no relief sought against him, being the Manager, who made the appointments overlooking the claim of the petitioners and against the vacancy not in existence, it is his duty to explain the facts before this Court when the petitioners raised their genuine grievance. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeals stand dismissed.