IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2093 of 2005()
1. V.H. MOHAMMED KUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. ARTIST K.S.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :25/02/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
----------------------------------------
W.A.No.2093 OF 2005
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.18330/2004. He approached this Court, challenging Ext.P7
order the Director of Public Instruction, directing to appoint the
4th respondent under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R.
The said order was quashed by this Court, mainly, relying on the
submission of the 4th respondent that for the time being he is
not in a position to join the post of Full Time Menial. For
appointment to higher posts, his claim was upheld by the D.P.I.
But, while quashing Ext.P7, the learned Single Judge said that
the judgment will not stand in the way of 4th respondent staking
his claim in the vacancy that may arise after April, 2008. The
learned counsel for the appellant submits that to that extent the
judgment is unsustainable. The said liberty given to the 4th
respondent to move for appointment in future is hanging as the
sword of Damocles over his head. Every time he proposes to
make an appointment. The unsustainable claim of the 4th
W.A.No.2093/2005 2
respondent is standing as a hurdle. It is also pointed out that
after April, 2008, so far, the 4th respondent has not moved the
appellant for any appointment. Relying on Exts.P11 and P12, it
is submitted that the 4th respondent was, in fact, appointed, but
he did not join duty also.
2. We find that the learned Single Judge did not say
anything on the merits of the claim of the 4th respondent. Only
liberty was given to him to represent in future and the Manager
has to consider his application, if any, made on merits, in
accordance with law. So, we notice that the contentions of the
Manager that the 4th respondent is not entitled to get any
appointment in future is not affected by the direction. It is
declared so. In other words, the above direction will not stand in
the way of the Manger, rejecting the claim of the 4th respondent
on valid grounds. Therefore, it is unnecessary to vacate the
direction of the learned Single Judge. With the above
clarification, this writ appeal is closed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
ps