IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15805 of 2009(U)
1. SMITHA THOMAS, H.S.A (ENGLISH),
... Petitioner
2. ANNIE HILDA,
3. BABITHA MATHEW, H.S.A.ENGLISH,
Vs
1. CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15805 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners herein are working as High School Assistants
in the St.Rita’s H.S, Ponnurunny, Santacruz H.S, Ochanthuruth,
St. Albert’s H.S, Ernakulam.
2. The main grievance raised by the petitioners is regarding
the orders passed granting approval of their appointments on
daily wage basis against permanent vacancies to which they were
appointed. The first petitioner was appointed as H.S.A (English)
in St. Rita’s H.S, Ponnurunny on daily wages from 17.07.2008 to
31.03.2009 in a permanent vacancy of Smt.Annie K. Thomas,
H.S.A (English) who was transferred to St. Albert’s T.T.I,
Ernakulam with effect from 17.07.2008. The second petitioner
was appointed as H.S.A (Natural Science) in a permanent
vacancy in Santa Cruz H.S, Ochanthuruth from 15.09.2008
onwards which arose due to the resignation of Smt. Agnes Lilly
W.P.(C) No.15805/2009 2
from service with effect from 07.08.2008 to join as H.S.S.T in
Government service. The third petitioner was appointed on daily
wages from 08.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 in St.Albert’s H.S,
Ernakulam in a permanent vacancy. Exhibits P1, P1(a) and P1(b)
are the orders of appointment.
3. The appointments were made on daily wage basis
evidently in the light of G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn dated
10.06.2008, which is produced as Exhibit P2 herein. Exhibit P2(a)
is the copy of G.O.(P) No.169/2004/G.Edn dated 15.06.2004.
Earlier the Government Orders were under challenge in W.P.(C)
No.22780/2008 wherein this Court was pleased to pass an
interim order also.
4. After the interim order was passed in the said writ
petition, appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners
were modified and Exhibits P3, P3(a) and P3(b) were forwarded
by the Manager to the District Educational Officer. In respect of
the third petitioner, Exhibit P4(c) order has been passed stating
that orders once issued cannot be revised without appellate
orders from the authority competent.
W.P.(C) No.15805/2009 3
5. Presently, the matter is covered by a Division Bench
decision of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala
(2009(2) KLT 604), a copy of which is produced as Exhibit P5
in this writ petition. The validity of Exhibit P2 Government Order
was under challenge therein. In paragraph 7 of the said
judgment, it was held that the Government Order cannot stand
with the statutory rules. Therefore, for enforcing them, the
relevant rules require amendment. As long as the rules are not
amended, Exhibit P2 cannot be pressed into service by the
Government. Ultimately, in paragraph 12, the following
directions were issued:
“In the case of the writ petitioners in these
cases, orders, if any passed, approving their
appointments on daily wage basis, relying on Ext.P2
Government Order are quashed. All appointments,
whether pending approval or already rejected, shall
be considered/reconsidered by the Educational
Officers concerned and fresh orders shall be passed
in the light of the declaration of law made by us in
W.P.(C) No.25176 of 2008. The salary found due to
be paid to the incumbents concerned shall be
released immediately. The action in this regard shall
W.P.(C) No.15805/2009 4
be completed within six weeks from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment”.
In the light of the above dictum laid down by the Division
Bench, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the writ petition.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The orders granting
approval on daily wage basis will be reconsidered by the
competent authority namely, the 5th respondent and appropriate
orders regarding approval in respect of the petitioners will be
passed in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench in
the above mentioned judgment within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp