IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18202 of 2009(U)
1. N.SHINU, AGED 21 YEARS, W/O.K.DILIP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.18202 of 2009-U
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as .L.P.S.A. from 22.10.2008 onwards
in A.M.L.P.School, Valavannoor North against the vacancy of Smt. Deepa
Kaniyailil who was relieved to join duty in Government school. But this
appointment was approved by the 4th respondent on daily wage basis for the
period from 22.10.2008 to 30.4.2009 and on probationary from re-opening
date. This is evident from Ext.P3 This was done mainly relying upon G.O.
(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008, which is produced as Ext.P2.
Against Ext.P3 order, the Manager has filed an appeal before the third
respondent, which is produced as Ext.P4.
2. The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders , on
account of which, an objection has been raised by the Educational Authority
regarding the approval of petitioners’ appointment.
3. This court in a batch of cases, reported in Unni Narayanan v.
State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the
statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. Ext.P2
herein, was under challenge in those cases. It was held that “if the vacancy
wpc 18202/2009 2
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.”
4. In the light of the above, Exts.P3 to the extent to which approval
is given only on daily wages basis is quashed. The fourth respondent will
pass fresh orders in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench
in the above decision, within a period of two months from the date of
wpc 18202/2009 3
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of
this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench
referred to above, before the fourth respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/