subsequently acquired it, thereby complying with the eligibility requirements as laid down in the KER, their appointments could be approved with effect from the dates of their appointment. With the issuance of Exts.P9 and P12 Government orders, therefore, the respondents should have automatically approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 9.7.2001. The mere fact that the petitioner was, during the period when there was an ambiguity that prevailed with regard to approval to appointments effected, reappointed by the 4th respondent Manager, could not in any way affect the legality of her first appointment to the School by Ext.P1 order. In fact, the petitioner would rely on Ext.P19 judgment of this Court where, in similar circumstances, the earlier appointment of a teacher was directed to be approved with effect from the date of such appointment notwithstanding the fact that she had been subsequently appointed by a fresh order of appointment. Thus, in view of the clarifications given by the Government in Exts.P9 and P12 orders and the view taken in Ext.P19 judgment of this Court, I am of the view that Exts.P15 and P18 orders, of the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively, cannot be legally sustained. Resultantly, I quash Exts.P15 and P18 orders and direct that the 2nd respondent shall
