IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16490 of 2009(E)
1. P.SHEEJA, W/O.VENUGOPALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, S.N.L.P.SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :16/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.16490 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of approval
of appointment on daily wage basis. He was appointed as a
Lower Primary School Assistant by the 5th respondent in a
permanent vacancy which occurred on 03.01.2005. That was
approved as per Exhibit P6. The same was objected by the
Deputy Director of Education stating that the appointment of
teachers can be approved only on daily wage basis as the
duration is less than one academic year. Exhibit P7 is the extract
of the audit objection which was forwarded by the Assistant
Educational Officer as per Exhibit P8 to the Headmaster, and the
salary was withheld till objections are cleared.
2. Even though an appeal was filed against the objection,
that was rejected by the Government as per Exhibit P9. In
Exhibit P9, the Government ordered to approve the appointment
of the petitioner with effect from 03.01.2005 to 31.03.2005 on
W.P.(C) No.16490/2009 2
daily wage basis and with effect from the next academic year on
regular basis.
3. The petitioner points out that the objections taken by
the authorities are based on the Government Orders namely,
Exhibits P1, P2 etc. Presently, the matter is covered by the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs.
State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 604), a copy of which is
produced as Exhibit P10 in the writ petition. The validity of
Exhibit P5 Government Order dated 10.06.2008 was considered
by the Division Bench in the said decision. It was held in
paragraph 7 thus:
“…..the Government may be able to issue executive
instructions, but they have no efficacy to override the
statutory provisions. We agree with the contentions
of the writ petitioners that the offending conditions in
Ext.P2 Government Order cannot stand with the
statutory rules. Therefore, for enforcing them, the
relevant rules require amendment. As long as the
rules are not amended, Ext.P2 cannot be pressed
into service by the Government….”.
Finally, in paragraph 12, the following directions were issued:
“In the case of the writ petitioners in these
cases, orders, if any passed, approving their
W.P.(C) No.16490/2009 3
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”.
In the light of the above, the petitioner is entitled to
succeed in the writ petition. Exhibits P7, P8 and P9 are therefore
quashed. There will be a direction to the Assistant Educational
Officer to pass fresh orders in the matter 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.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp
