High Court Kerala High Court

Razia Bhanu vs The District Educational Officer on 25 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Razia Bhanu vs The District Educational Officer on 25 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17656 of 2009(B)


1. RAZIA BHANU, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

4. THE MANAGER, KELAPPAJI MEMORIAL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :25/06/2009

 O R D E R
                 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
              ---------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.17656 OF 2009
              ---------------------------------------
            Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009.


                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was appointed in the 4th respondent’s Higher

Secondary School in a vacancy that arose due to resignation of

one Abdul Gafoor Konjilath who was a High School Assistant

(Arabic) P.T. Department on temporary basis. She was

appointed on regular basis from 29.12.2008 onwards. Exhibit P1

is the copy of the order of appointment. The 1st respondent-

District Educational Officer, as per Exhibit P2, rejected the

approval of appointment of the petitioner in the light of G.O.(P)

No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.06.2008, which is produced as

Exhibit P3 herein. Exhibits P2 and P3 are challenged in this writ

petition.

2. The validity of Exhibit P3 Government Order was under

challenge in various writ petitions before this Court and a Division

Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala

(2009(2) KLT 604) has held in paragraph 7 that the offending

W.P.(C) No.17656/2009 2

conditions in Exhibit 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,

Exhibit P2 cannot be pressed into service by the Government.

3. 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

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, Exhibit P2 is quashed. The District

Educational Officer will pass fresh orders in the light of the

directions issued by the Division Bench above which will govern

this case also. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period

W.P.(C) No.17656/2009 3

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment

along with copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to

above before the District Educational Officer for compliance.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

smp