IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1882 of 2006()
1. ST.MARY'S CORPORATE AND EDUCATIONAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ELIZABETH PAUL, HSA (ENGLISH),
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. V.M.TOMY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :16/10/2006
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
W.A. No.1882 of 2006
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2006
JUDGMENT
Abdul Gafoor, J
The education agency is aggrieved by
the judgment of the learned Single Judge
impugned in this appeal. The judgment
directs approval of the appointment of the
writ petitioner/first respondent. She has
been appointed, according to the appellant
by the erstwhile Manager whose term had
expired on 27.04.05. As is revealed by
Annexure-A, the appointment of the first
respondent was effected on 24.07.05.
Therefore, the Manager did not have any
right to make effect such appointment on
W.A. No.1882 of 2006 -2-
such date. So such appointment ought not to
have been directed to be approved.
2. In answer to the contention, it is
submitted by the Counsel for the first
respondent that going by clause-6 of the
bye-laws by which the education agency is
constituted and appointment of Manager is
permitted, though the term of Manager
appointed is for two years, he is entitled
to continue until his successor is
appointed and approved. Therefore, there is
nothing illegal in the direction of the
learned Single Judge as, as on the date of
her appointment, no successor to the
erstwhile Manager had been elected. He also
points out the impact of Rule 9(1) Chapter
W.A. No.1882 of 2006 -3-
XIV A KER to the effect that the change in
Manager shall not affect the appointment
order.
3. It is true that Annexure-A order
whereby the appointment of the erstwhile
Manager had been approved contains a
stipulation that his appointment was
approved for two years or until the
successor is appointed whichever is
earlier. But Clause-6 of the bye-laws
enables his continuance until the election
and approval of his successor.
4. In such circumstances, we dispose
of the appeal directing the DEO to consider
the approval of appointment of the Teacher/
first respondent as directed by the learned
W.A. No.1882 of 2006 -4-
Single Judge taking into account Annexure-A
order and its impact with reference to
Clause 6 of the bye-laws and also Rule 9(1)
Chapter XIV A KER. Order shall be passed
within one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
5. With the above observation, this
writ appeal is disposed of.
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR,
(JUDGE)
K. P. BALACHANDRAN,
(JUDGE)
kns/-
W.A. No.1882 of 2006 -5-
W.A. No.1882 of 2006 -6-