year. That mistake has been corrected by the 2nd respondent by issuing Ext.P2 order. In that order, the 2nd respondent stated that due to an oversight that post could not be sanctioned in that school during the academic year 2001-2002. The 3rd respondent has appointed the petitioner in that vacancy of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior)(Malayalam) after receiving Ext.P2 order by issuing Ext.P3 order. So, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was appointed with effect from 15.7.2001 in the vacancy sanctioned by the 2nd respondent himself by issuing Ext.P2 order. Exts.P3 and P4 proposals for approval of that appointment were forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, after receiving Exts.P3 and P4 proposals from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent should have approved that appointment. But, without any justifying reason, that proposal for approval has been rejected by him by issuing Ext.P6. Ext.P6 cannot stand in the eye of law. Therefore, Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner is also liable to be set aside.
