IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34825 of 2009(W)
1. ASHA.B., U.P.S.A.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
5. THE MANAGER, D.P.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 34825 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Primary School
Assistant in an aided school with effect from 30.6.2008 against a
retirement vacancy, which arose on 1.4.2008. She was thereafter
appointed on a permanent basis in the very same vacancy on 1.6.2009
and that appointment was approved also. Approval for the petitioner’s
appointment for the period from 30.6.2008 to 31.5.2009 has been
rejected on the ground that as per G.O. (P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated
10.6.2008, if the period of appointment does not cover one academic
year, the said appointment shall be made only on daily basis. The
District Educational Officer and the Director of Public Instruction have
rejected the appeals of the petitioner confirming the order of the
Assistant Educational Officer. It is under the above circumstances, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“a. Call for the entire records leading upto the order of 1st respondent
declining approval of Ext.P1 on scale of pay and and Ext.P3 and P4
orders passed by the respondents no.2 and 3 and quash the same
by issuing w writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondents no. 1 to 4 to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as UPSA in the 5th respondent school
from 30.6.2008 to 31.05.2009 and sanction and disburse salary to
her without any further delay.”
2. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision of this
2
Court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala [2009 (7) KLT 604],
wherein this Court held that the Government order relied upon by the
petitioner cannot be pressed into service in the case of appointment in
a regular vacancy, without amending the rules. But the learned
Government Pleader submits that that decision cannot be applied in
this case, since the petitioner has been appointed by two separate
appointment orders. Whatever that be, the appointment is in a
permanent vacancy, which arose on 30.6.2008 and continued
uninterruptedly. That being so, I am satisfied that the above said
decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. In the above
circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is
directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 30.6.2008
continuously without interruption and disburse all monetary benefits
arising therefrom for the period from 30.6.2008 to 31.5.2009 also, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall see
that the headmaster forwards the bills for salary as soon as the AEO
informs that the appointment has been duly approved as directed
above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge