K.A.HABSA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the 4th respondent School as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.07.2010. This was approved by the third respondent as well. But later, pursuant to the audit objection, the third respondent wrote to the 2nd respondent for passing further orders to cancel the approval, as the vacancy against which the petitioner was accommodated ought to have been filled up by a protected hand .

(2.) IN the course of further proceedings, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 Notes of argument before the 2nd respondent. However, without any regard to the actual facts and figures, Ext.P5 order dated 29.09.2012 was passed by the 2nd respondent, which in turn is under challenge by filing Ext.P6 representation before the first respondent.

(3.) HEARD the learned Government Pleader as well.