IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15045 of 2009(A)
1. C.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN,JUNIOR ARABIC
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER,S.N.L.P.SCHOOL,VETTIKKATTIRI
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :02/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.15045/2009-A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein was appointed as a Junior Arabic Teacher with
effect from 01/07/2008 by the Manager. The vacancy arose due to the
retirement of the former incumbent Smt.K.N.Beevathu on 30/06/2008.
Ext.P1 produced herein is the copy of the appointment order. By Ext.P2 the
second respondent refused approval for appointment on the ground that the
period of appointment is not covering the academic year 2008-09. The
Manager filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad,
which is pending. The third respondent also made a request for approval of
appointment at least on daily wages, which is rejected by Ext.P3 by the
Assistant Educational Officer, Wadakkanchery.
2. The orders rejecting the approval of appointment have been
passed relying upon G.O.(P).No.104/2008/G.Edn., dated 10/06/2008. The
Government Order was under challenge in various writ petitions of this
Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan v.State of
Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 604] has considered the validity of the Government
Order and it was held that without amending the statutory rules, a
W.P.(C). No.15045/2009
-:2:-
Government Order cannot be pressed into service. It was held that “if the
vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, appointment
can be made to fill up the same. The term of appointment need not be co-
terminus with the term of the vacancy. If, in fact, the vacancy is having a
duration of one academic year or more, even if, there is some delay in
making the appointment, such appointment will have to be approved.”
Ultimately, in para 12, a direction was issued as follows:
“12. 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 be completed
within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of
this judgment.”
3. In the light of the above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in
the writ petition. Exts.P2 and P3 are therefore, set aside. There will be a
W.P.(C). No.15045/2009
-:3:-
direction to the second respondent to pass fresh orders in the light of the
findings contained in the judgment in Unni Narayanan’s case [2009 (2) KLT
604]. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Depending upon the final
orders thus passed, the salary of the petitioner shall also be disbursed. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the
Division Bench judgment before the authority concerned for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms