IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 944 of 2006()
1. V. PRABHAKARAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
... Petitioner
2. RAMACHANDRAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :07/07/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Writ Appeal No.944 of 2006.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Gopinathan, J.
Assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge
dated 28.9.2005 in WP(C).No.984/2005, the unsuccessful
petitioners had come up in appeal. The petitioners, who
were holding TCH certificate issued by the Government of
Karnataka were appointed as Lower Primary School
Assistants in AMUP School, Kanmanam, Thanur in
Malappuram district. The 4th respondent, the Assistant
Educational Officer, Thanur declined to approve the
appointment for the reason that the certificates held by the
appellants were not approved by the State Government.
Though, the Manager went in appeal, he was not
successful. Therefore, the appellants, who were working
from 28.3.1994 were terminated with effect from the
WA.No.944 of 2006.
-: 2 :-
afternoon of 31.10.1995. Later, the State Government
approved the TCH holders for appointment in State service
and by GO.(MS)No.18/97/G.Edn. dated 17.1.1997 and GO
(MS)No.348/97/G.Edn. dated 2.9.1997 issued orders
directing to approve the service of the thrown out TCH
holders. The appellants moved the Government and
obtained order of approval of their appointment with effect
from 1995-’96. Though, the Manager assailed the said
order he was unsuccessful. The appointments of the
appellants were directed to be considered. In the light of
the above Government Orders, the Deputy Director of
Education directed the Manager to re-appoint the
appellants. Later, the first appellant was appointed in
KPNMUPS, Thanur and the second appellant was appointed
at AMLPS, Kormanthala and they joined duty with effect
from 12.8.1999.
2. Holders of Teachers Training Certificate (TTC)
who were appointed in the vacancy created by the
WA.No.944 of 2006.
-: 3 :-
termination of the appellants, though moved this Court
were unsuccessful. There were a series of litigations. By
Ext.P1 judgment dated 28.1.2004 in OP.No.6959/2003 filed
by the appellants and another, another Division Bench of
this Court clarified that:
“in view of the revisional order passed by the
Government setting aside the termination,
the entire period from the date of re-
appointment in 1994 should be counted for
their pensionary benefits.”
Quoting Ext.P1 judgment, the appellants preferred
representation to grant them monetary benefits from the
date of their initial appointment though Ext.P1 doesn’t
contain any order to that effect. Their request was turned
down by the authorities. Being aggrieved, they moved this
Court with the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to immediately disburse all
benefits to the appellants from the date of their initial
appointment as teachers with interest at the rate of 18%
per annum. The learned single Judge disposed the writ
WA.No.944 of 2006.
-: 4 :-
petition directing the respondents to pay the salary for the
period from 28.3.1994 till 31.10.1995 for which period they
had actually worked. Being aggrieved by the order
declining salary for the period they were kept out of service,
this writ appeal was filed with a delay of 98 days.
2. Notice was ordered on petition to condone the
delay. Notice to respondents 1 and 3 were acknowledged.
Notice to respondents 2 and 4 were returned. Appellants
were directed to remit fresh process. But, the appellant did
not care to remit the process fee though nearly four years
elapsed. Respondents 2 and 4, being the Deputy Director of
Education, Malappuram and the Assistant Educational
Officer, Thanur, the Government Pleader was asked to take
notice. He took notice. Accordingly, the petition to
condone the delay and the appeal were heard.
3. Ext.P1 judgment, being one delivered in a writ
petition filed by the appellants and another, would be
binding on the appellants. The relevant portion of Ext.P1
WA.No.944 of 2006.
-: 5 :-
which we quoted above would show that, in the earlier
round of litigation, this Court, after declining their claim for
salary from the initial date of appointment, ordered that for
the pensionary benefit, such period would be counted. In
view of Ext.P1, the appellants are, in fact, estoped from
moving another petition seeking a writ for the same relief.
However, the learned single Judge had directed the
respondents to disburse the salary for the period during
which they had actually worked. The learned single Judge
while declining the reliefs sought had found that Ext.P1
judgment would be binding upon the appellants. It could
not be ignored that the services of the appellants were
terminated by the Manager obviously for the reason that at
the time of appointment the certificates held by them were
not approved by the State Government. In the above
circumstance, it cannot be said that the services of the
appellants were terminated by the Manager with malafides.
The claim for salary during the period during which they
WA.No.944 of 2006.
-: 6 :-
had not actually worked was rightly rejected by the learned
single Judge. There is total lack of banafides in claiming
salary for the period during which the appellants had not
rendered any service. We find no reason to entertain this
appeal after condoning the delay. Accordingly, the petition
to condone the delay and the appeal are dismissed as
devoid of merit.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(Judge)
P.S.GOPINATHAN,
(Judge)
Kvs/-