The petitioner states that the grant of approval of the petitioner as HST (Social Science) for the period from 25.6.2009 to 31.5.2011 was rejected by Ext.P2 order limiting the approval from 1.6.2011 onwards. According to the learned counsel, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Kerala Aided L.P and U.P.School Managers Association v. State of Kerala [ILR 2016 (1) Kerala 590] and several other decisions, the appointment is required to be approved by treating that the Manager has executed the bond and they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers, equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The petitioner contends that she has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent narrating the entire aspects. Though various other reliefs are claimed, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the 1st respondent is directed to take up Ext.P5 and take a decision within a time frame with due notice to her.
