IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20111 of 2009(H)
1. VINODAN K.K.,P.T.SANSKRIT TEACHER,
... Petitioner
2. RAJU K.,JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.J.MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20111 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The 1st petitioner was appointed as part time Sanskrit
Teacher in Holy Family U.P. School, Changaroth with effect from
09.07.2008. He was appointed in a regular/permanent vacancy
that arose due to the retirement of Sri.V.V.Gopinathan on
30.06.2008. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the order of appointment.
2. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Junior Language
Teacher Sanskrit (P.T) with effect from 15.07.2008. He was
appointed in a regular/permanent vacancy that arose due to the
promotion of Smt.Lincy George and her transfer to St.George
H.S.S, Kulathuvayal. Exhibit P2 is the copy of the said
appointment order. 4th respondent is the Manager of these two
schools.
3. Exhibit P1 will show that the appointment of the
1st petitioner was approved only on daily wage basis. The order
is passed by the 2nd respondent. Exhibit P2 will show that the
W.P.(C) No.20111/2009 2
3rd respondent sanctioned only daily wages from 15.07.2008 to
31.03.2009 for the 2nd petitioner. The approval as such has been
granted in the light of Exhibit P3 Government Order, G.O.(P)
No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.06.2008.
4. The validity of Exhibit P3 Government Order was under
challenge in various writ petitions before this Court and a Division
Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala
(2009(2) KLT 604) has held in paragraph 7 that the offending
conditions in Exhibit P2 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.
5. Finally 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.20111/2009 3
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
be completed within six weeks from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment”.
In the light of the above, Exhibits P1 and P2 to the extent to
which approval is denied on regular basis are quashed. The
respondents 2 and 3 will pass fresh orders regarding grant of
approval to petitioners 1 and 2, in the light of the directions
issued by the Division Bench above. Appropriate orders shall be
passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce a copy of
this judgment along with copy of the judgment of the Division
Bench referred to above before respondents 2 and 3 for
compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp