AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 265 wordsMohammed Nias C.P., J
The first petitioner is stated to be the approved manager of AUP School, Rayiranellur, Palakkad district, who appointed petitioners 2 and 3 as LPSTs and petitioners 4 and 5 as UPSTs respectively. Though a proposal for approval of their appointment was submitted before the third respondent AEO, he has not so far approved the appointment of the petitioners and they were forced to work without salary. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to compel the third respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioners
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that though a letter was issued to the first petitioner on 1.11.2023 directing him to produce certain documents, they were not furnished.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, and noticing the fact that the counter filed on behalf of the Government shows that the first petitioner is the approved manager, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the approval of the appointment of the petitioners 2 and 3 as LPSTs with effect from 1.6.2022 and petitioners 4 and 5 as UPSTs from 6.10.2022 and 1.6.2023 respectively, if they are otherwise in order. Orders as directed above shall be passed within six weeks from today. If the Educational Officer requires any documents that are relevant for the above consideration, they shall issue a letter to the manager and in that case, the first petitioner shall produce the same without delay.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.