IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20506 of 2009(G)
1. THUSHARA.M., D/O.SHRI.E.CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCAIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
4. THE MANAGER, DURGA HIGHER SECONDARY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.20506 of 2009-G
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in
the school managed by the 4th respondent, in the leave vacancy of one Smt.
Seema, for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.3.2013. The leave was granted
by the Government as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner was appointed on
12.6.2008 which is evident from Ext.P2 appointment order. The first
respondent District Educational Officer rejected the approval of
appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order, mainly because of G.O.
(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008 which is produced as Ext.P5
herein. Against Ext.P3, the Manager filed an appeal before the second
respondent which was also rejected as per Ext.P4.
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. Ext.P5
herein was under challenge in those cases. 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-terminus with
wpc 20506/2009 2
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:
“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. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. There will be a direction
to the first respondent to pass fresh orders regarding the approval of
appointment of the petitioner, in the light of the findings rendered by the
Division Bench in the above decision. Appropriate orders shall be passed
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 writ petition along with
wpc 20506/2009 3
a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/