IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11696 of 2009(F)
1. MANU.N., UPSA, SKV SANSKRIT UPS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
6. HEADMASTER, SKV SANSKRIT UP SCHOOL,
7. MANAGER,SKV SANSKRIT UP SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SASIKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.S.KANNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.11696 of 2009-F
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the grant of approval of
appointment on daily wages basis, even though he was appointed as a
regular hand from 13.11.2007 onwards. Ext.P2 is the order of appointment.
That was rejected as per Ext.P3 relying upon G.O.(P) No.164/04/G.Edn.
dated 15.6.2004. The Manager filed an appeal as per Ext.P4 and the District
Educational Officer directed approval as U.P.S.A. from 13.11.2007 to
31.3.2008 on daily wages basis and from the reopening date on scale of pay
basis. This was challenged before the Director of Public Instruction as per
Ext.P6. Subsequently, the Manager issued an order of appointment in
accordance with the directions issued by the District Educational Officer, as
per Ext.P7. Ext.P7 shows that the petitioner’s appointment has been
approved on daily wages basis. Ext.P6 revision filed by the Manager was
also rejected by Ext.P8 which was challenged before the Government as per
Ext.P9. By Ext.P10, the same also stands dismissed. The said orders are
under challenge in this writ petition.
2. This court in a batch of cases, reported in Unni Narayanan v.
wpc 12696/2009 2
State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the
statutory rules, a 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.”
Accordingly, Exts.P5, P8 and P10 are quashed to the extent the
appointment of the petitioner is approved on daily wages basis for the
wpc 12696/2009 3
period from 13.11.2007 onwards, are quashed. There will be a direction to
the Asst. Educational Officer to reconsider the approval of the petitioner
and pass appropriate orders in the light of the findings rendered by the
Division Bench in the above case, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
