IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7195 of 2008(F)
1. V.SUDHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :27/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.7195/2008-F
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is really aggrieved by orders directing the refund of
salary that was paid to him on the basis of competent orders of approval.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher, as
per Ext.P1, with effect from 28/07/1995, by the Manager. The appointment
was in a regular vacancy which arose due to the retirement of one
Smt.K.Soumini on 31/03/1995. By Ext.P2, Government directed
regularisation of appointment of 54 Physical Education Teachers.
Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from
17/07/2000 in the light of Ext.P2. The petitioner thereafter, moved the
Director of Public Instructions by filing Ext.P3 seeking for approval of
appointment from the date of appointment. By Ext.P4, the Director of
Public Instructions issued a general order to the Educational Officers
directing them to approve the appointments of 54 Physical Education
Teachers from the date from which they were appointed if the appointments
are otherwise in order. Accordingly, by Ext.P5, the files in respect of
W.P.(C). No.7195/2008
-:2:-
petitioner was reopened and, by Ext.P6, approval of appointment has been
granted from 28/07/1995.
3. Thereafter, the Assistant Educational Officer , based on a
direction issued by the Director of Public Instructions, ordered that the
salary paid may be refunded, against which the petitioner filed Ext.P8
representation. But, by Ext.P9, the direction to refund the salary was again
re-issued by the Assistant Educational Officer. Ext.P10 is the direction
issued by the Director of Public Instructions in the matter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light
of the specific directions in Ext.P2 for regularisation, the petitioner is
entitled for approval of appointment from the date of appointment itself and
therefore, what is done by the Assistant Educational Officer, as per Ext.P6
order, is perfectly justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P.(C).Nos.2315/2006 and
20652/2007 which is in respect of two other teachers who were governed by
the very same order, Ext.P2. Therein, after considering various aspects, it
was held in paragraph (6) in the following terms:-
“The objection now taken that the appointment can
be approved only prospectively, is not supported by any
W.P.(C). No.7195/2008
-:3:-
Government Order including Ext.P1. The wording in
Ext.P1 shows that the Government has regulairsed the
appointments of 54 Physical Education Teachers. That
itself shows that the regularisation will take effect from
the date of appointment itself. There is no direction in
Ext.P1 that the appointments are to be approved only
prospectively. As the Government has regularised the
appointments as such, the Director of Public Instruction
could not have issued a later order, Ext.P7, without
having received any other direction issued by the
Government in the matter. Therefore, the objection that
is raised in Ext.P7 cannot be sustained.”
The case of the petitioner herein, is identical. It is clear from the
representation-Ext.P3, orders passed by the District Educational Officer-
Ext.P5 and by the Assistant Educational Officer-Ext.P6 that the petitioner is
also one of the appointees governed by Ext.P2 order. In that view of the
matter, since the Government had directed regularisation of service, the
regularisation of appointment has to be effected from the date of
appointment itself.
W.P.(C). No.7195/2008
-:4:-
5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P9 and P10 are
quashed. It is reported that in the light of Ext.P9, increment as well as
higher grade benefits due to the petitioner have not been sanctioned so far.
The fourth respondent will examine the matter and pass appropriate orders
regarding the monetary benefits due to the petitioner, by way of increments
and higher grade. Orders as above will be passed within a period of three
months. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms