IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5497 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ELIZABETH SEBASTIAN, H.S.A (ENGLISH), J.J.M.M.H.S.S., YENDAR, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, J.J.M.H.S.S. YENDAYAR(PO), YENDAYAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P..C. NO. 5497/2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 4-3-2009. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 29-6-2009. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO. 31895/2009. EXT.P4 HEARING NOTICE DT. 2-12-2009. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 21-12-2009. EXT.P6 COMMUNICATION DT. 28-11-2008. EXT.P7 COMMUNICATION DT. 7-12-2009. EXT.P8 COMMUNICATION DT. 22-1-2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.R3(a) GOVT ORDER DT. 7-1-2002. EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION. EXT.R3(c) COMMUNICATION DT. 15-2-2010. EXT.R3(d) COMMUNICATION DT. 16-2-2010. EXT.R3(e) DO. DT. 30-6-2009. EXT.R3(f) DO. DT. 16-12-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 5497 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as a H.S.A (English) in an aided school. She was appointed as H.S.A by the 3rd respondent- manager on 2-6-2008 in a promotion vacancy. In the matter of approval of the petitioner's appointment, the petitioner obtained Ext. P3 judgment from this Court. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Public Instruction allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by Ext. P5 order dated 21-12-2009, directing the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 2-6-2008 as H.S.A (English). The petitioner's grievance is that the same is not being implemented. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 2.6.2008 and pay the salary including arrears of salary by implementing Ext. P 5 order forthwith.” 2. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that a protected teacher has not been appointed before the petitioner was appointed. But the manager has filed a counter affidavit stating thus in paragraph 5: “5. It is respectfully submitted that one vacancy of H.S.A (Mal) is already set apart for absorbing a protected teacher with effect from 01.06.2007. This vacancy will only be filled up by a protected teacher from the list of teachers furnished by the Department. This deponent is ready and willing to give appointment at any time. There is absolutely no objection in appointing a protected teacher (Malayalam) in the school earmarked for that purpose. Therefore, it is only just and reasonable for the DEO to approve the appointment of the petitioner by implementing Ext. P 5 order without further delay.” W.P.C. No. 5497/2010. -: 2 :- The learned Government Pleader also does not dispute the fact that the manager had in fact appointed a protected teacher who did not join duty. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the 2nd respondent can now refuse to approve the appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner and disburse salary with arrears due to the petitioner for such approved appointment. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that the 2nd respondent would be free to see that the manager complies with his undertaking as quoted above, which shall not be made as a condition for approval of the petitioner's appointment as directed above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/