IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27634 of 2009(Y)
1. SMT.SINDU B.S., ASSISTANT TEACHER,
... Petitioner
2. SMT.K.L.SHIJILA,
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :12/10/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27634 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
It is the second time that the petitioners are before this
Court seeking approval of their appointments. The complaint
raised by the petitioners is that in spite of the judgment
Exhibit P3, the Assistant Educational Officer has granted approval
without complying with the directions issued in the said
judgment. Shortly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal of
the writ petition are the following:
2. The 1st petitioner was appointed on 05.06.2006 and the
2nd petitioner on 18.06.2007. The issue regarding their approval
was finally decided by the Additional Director of Education
(Academic) by Exhibit P1. Therein the approval of appointment
of the 1st petitioner from 01.06.2007 was rejected and the action
of the District Educational Officer in directing the approval of
Sri.K.M.Saju from 01.06.2007 was found proper. There was a
further direction to appoint Smt.K.L.Shijila in the promotion
W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 2
vacancy. The said order was under challenge before this Court in
W.P.(C)No.10003/2009. During the pendency of the writ
petition, the disputes between the parties were settled and
Exhibit P2 is the copy of the agreement.
3. Going by the terms contained in Exhibit P2, the
1st petitioner will have to be adjusted against the vacancy which
arose on 05.06.2007 consequent on the promotion of
Sri.K.Balakrishnan, U.P.S.A as Headmaster. The 2nd petitioner
will have to be adjusted against the vacancy which arose
consequent on the promotion of Sri.V.C.Sreedharan, U.P.S.A as
Headmaster with effect from 02.06.2008.
4. This Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the
agreement and after quashing Exhibit P12 order produced in that
writ petition (Exhibit P1 produced here). This Court issued the
following directions in paragraph 3 of the writ petition:
“Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in
terms of the agreement, Ext.P14. Ext.P12 order is
therefore quashed. The Manager will forward fresh
proposal in terms of the agreement, to the 4th
respondent and the 4th respondent will take
appropriate action to approve the appointments.
W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 3
Final orders shall be passed by the 4th respondent,
within one month from the date of receipt of proposal
from the Manager. The other legal issues raised in
the writ petition are left open”.
5. Thereafter, the Manager issued fresh appointment orders
as Exhibits P4(a) and P4(b). But, while granting approval, the
Assistant Educational Officer has granted approval to the
petitioners on daily wages from 17.08.2009 to 31.03.2010 and
probationary from the date of reopening of the school in the next
academic year 2010-2011. This is under challenge in this writ
petition.
6. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent. It is pointed out that the copy of Exhibit P2 and
copy of the relinquishment of the claim of the 2nd petitioner were
not produced and therefore, the Assistant Educational Officer
passed orders of approval in terms of the appointment orders. It
is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
original of Exhibit P2 was produced before the Assistant
Educational Officer for perusal by the 1st petitioner herself and if
it is required, the same will be produced again.
W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 4
7. As far as the the question of producing copy of the
relinquishment is concerned, it is pointed out that in the light of
the specific clauses contained in Exhibit P2, same is not required.
I find force in the said submission made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. The terms of compromise have been clearly
recorded in Exhibit P2 and the same have been approved by this
Court in Exhibit P3. Therefore, action will have to be taken in
terms of the compromise itself and as directed in Exhibit P3
judgment in W.P.(C) No.10003/2009. The question of producing
any fresh relinquishment does not arise. It is clear that the
approval granted on daily wages is also wrong. Therefore, this
writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:
The endorsement in
Exhibits P4(a) and P4(b) whereby the approval is granted only on
daily wages from 17.08.2009 to 31.03.2010 will stand set aside.
The Assistant Educational Officer will pass fresh orders in the
matter in terms of the conditions stipulated in Exhibit P2 and the
petitioners or the Manager will produce the original of Exhibit P2
before the Assistant Educational Officer and on receipt of the
W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 5
same, appropriate orders will be passed approving the
appointment of the petitioners as proposed in the orders of
appointment on regular basis within a period of one month from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp