N.K.Kuttykrishnan Nair vs The Assistant Educational … on 11 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9559 of 2005(K)


1. N.K.KUTTYKRISHNAN NAIR, MANAGER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SMT.JYOTHI MANOTH, MANOTH HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :11/11/2009

 O R D E R
               T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C). No.9559/2005-K
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, the Manager of a school has filed this

writ petition challenging the order approving the

appointment of the second respondent as a teacher in the

school. The petitioner’s wife was the Manager when the

second respondent was appointed. It is the case of the

petitioner that the order appointing the second respondent,

as per Ext.P1, was not approved going by Ext.P2 stating

that there was no sanctioned post. The petitioner was

approved as the Manager of the school as per Ext.P3.

Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Assistant Educational

Officer finding that there is an open vacancy to which the

second respondent was entitled to be appointed. In terms

of the said approval of appointment, she had drawn salary.

Subsequently, she left the service after resigning from the

post in question. The only issue is whether the school was

entitled for a post, to enable the then Manager to appoint

the second respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the second respondent

submitted that Ext.R2(b) is the order passed by the

Assistant Educational Officer in the matter pursuant to the

direction issued by the Government to reconsider the staff

W.P.(C). No.9559/2005
-:2:-

fixation orders. Accordingly, it was found that the school

is eligible for 14 divisions and sufficient number of posts

also. It is submitted that in terms of the same, the

appointment of the second respondent was approved.

3. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the first respondent that after restoring 14

divisions during the year 1994-95, there was a sanctioned

post to accommodate the second respondent in the school

from 01/01/1995. It is also averred that the appointment

of the second respondent, which was already rejected, was

reconsidered, after all the posts that existed in the

school during the year 1994-95 were restored.

4. In that view of the matter, the contention raised

by the petitioner that there was no creation of post and

consequent vacancy to justify the appointment of the second

respondent cannot be justified. In that view of the

matter, the consequential orders of approval and the

drawing of salary by the second respondent cannot be held

illegal. The writ petition fails and the same is

dismissed. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms