High Court Kerala High Court

O.J.Jincy vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 5 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
O.J.Jincy vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 5 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15524 of 2009(I)


1. O.J.JINCY, H.S.A.(ENGLISH),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL

3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :05/06/2009

 O R D E R
                    T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         W.P.(C). No.15524/2009-I
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a High School Assistant (English) in St.Thomas

High School, Mayanoor. She was appointed on 17/06/2008, in a regular

vacancy. It appears that the approval of the appointment was not granted in

the light of the Government Order (P).No.104/08/G.Edn., dated 10/06/2008.

Even though an appeal was filed by the Manager, the fifth respondent, that

was also rejected by Ext.P1. The said Government Order is produced as

Ext.P2 which is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. 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. 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-terminous 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:

W.P.(C). No.15524/2009
-:2:-

“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 legal position, Ext.P1 is quashed. There will

be a direction to the third respondent to consider the application for grant of

approval of appointment in the light of the directions issued by the Division

Bench within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment along

with a copy of the Division Bench judgment before the third respondent for

compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms