IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2315 of 2006(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.K. KANAKARAJAN, PHY. EDUCATION TEACHER, ABDURAHIMAN SMARAKAM U.P. SCHOOL, P.O. CHENDAYAD, PANOOR, KANNUR DIST. 2. SAYIDASAN N.P., PHY. EDUCATION TEACHER, THIRUVAL U.P. SCHOOL, P.O. ELANGODE, KANNUR DIST. 3. P.RAJAN, PHY. EDUCATION TEACHER, GURUDEVA SMARAKAM U.P. SCHOOL, P.O. CHENDAYAD, KANNUR DIST. 4. RAJEEV A., PHY. EDUCATION TEACHER, PARAMMAL U.P. SCHOOL, P.O. KALLIKKANDY, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.M.VIJAYAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MUHAMOOD.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009,ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.20652/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2315/2006-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).113/2000/G. EDN. DT. 06/04/2000. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY DPI DTD. 04/01/2002. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO P.1. DTD. 30/03/89. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO P.2. DTD. 01/06/89. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO P.3. DTD. 31/03/89. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPIOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO P.4 DTD. 06/06/94. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY DPI TO THE AEO'S DTD. 06/01/05. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY AEO DTD. 08/12/05. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O.RT. NO. 1324/2001/G. EDN. DTD. 30/03/2001. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.710/2000/G. EDN. DTD. 22/02/2000. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.5635/99/G. EDN. DTD. 31/12/99. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 2315/2006-A & 20652/2007-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The main writ petition is W.P.(C) No.2315/2006, wherein the question of approval of appointment of the petitioners from the respective dates is the subject matter in dispute. In Writ Petition No.20652/2007, the prayer is to quash Exts.P8 and P9 by which the pay fixation of the petitioners therein has been objected, in the light of the pendency of Writ Petition No.2315/2006. 2. All the four petitioners have been appointed as Physical Education Teachers in the respective schools. The first petitioner was appointed on 30.3.1989, the second petitioner on 1.6.1989, the third petitioner on 31.3.1989 and the 4th petitioner was appointed on 6.6.1994. The appointments of the petitioners were not initially approved by the departmental authorities. The Government by Ext.P1 order, regularised the appointments of 54 posts of Physical Education Teachers in various schools including that of the petitioners. Thereafter, by Ext.P2 the Director of Public Instruction directed the educational authorities to approve the wpc 2315/06 & 20652/07 2 appointments from the date from which they were appointed. 3. Exts.P3 to P6 are the respective orders passed, by which the appointments of these petitioners have been approved. They were being paid salary from the dates of appointments. Thereafter, by Ext.P7, the Director of Public Instruction directed the educational officers to recover salary from the date prior to the reopening of the school during 2000-2001 on the ground that the Government by Ext.P1, has not directed approval to be granted with retrospective dates. Consequently, directions have been issued by Ext.P9 by the Assistant Educational Officer to recover salary. In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the stand taken by the Director of Public Instruction cannot be sustained for more reasons than one. It is pointed out that there is no direction in Ext.P1 to approve the appointment prospectively only, but direction was to regularise the appointment of Physical Education Teachers. Petitioners 1 and 2 have been granted approval of appointment by separate Govt. Orders which have been produced as Exts.P10 and P11, produced along with I.A.No.8215/2009. It is therefore submitted that the view taken by the Director of Public Instruction in the impugned order, cannot be sustained. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is wpc 2315/06 & 20652/07 3 submitted that the appointment of petitioners 1 and 2 have been approved even prior to the issuance of Ext.P1 order, as per G.O.(Rt) No.710/2000/G.Edn. dated 22.2.2000, G.O.(Rt) No.1324/01/G.Edn. dated 30.3.2001 and G.O.(Rt) No.5635/99/G.Edn. dated 31.12.1999. The appointment of the first petitioner was approved with effect from 30.3.2001. Similarly, the appointment of the second petitioner was approved with effect from 1.6.1989 and consequential orders have been passed by the Asst. Educational Officer also, which are produced as Exts.P3 and P4. 6. The objection now taken that the appointment can be approved only prospectively, is not supported by any Government Order including Ext.P1. The wording in Ext.P1 shows that the Government has regulairsed the appointments of 54 Physical Education Teachers. That itself shows that the regularisation will take effect from the date of appointment itself. There is no direction in Ext.P1 that the appointments are to be approved only prospectively. As the Government has regularised the appointments as such, the Director of Public Instruction could not have issued a later order, Ext.P7, without having received any other direction issued by the Government in the matter. Therefore, the objection that is raised in Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. Apart from that, in respect of petitioners 1 and 2, by separate orders Exts.P10 and P11 the Government itself had approved the wpc 2315/06 & 20652/07 4 appointment from the dates shown therein. The same will prevail over Ext.P7, obviously. Once the appointment is approved, it will have to relate back to the date of appointment itself, unless otherwise shown in the order. There is no dispute that the petitioners have performed the duties as teachers also from the date of appointment. As regards petitioners 3 and 4, no other reasons have been pointed out also. 7. In the light of the above, Exts.P7 and P8 to the extent to which they affect the petitioners adversely, are quashed. The approval of appointment granted to the petitioners as per Exts.P3 to P6 will be treated as valid and they will be entitled for all consequential benefits accordingly. 8. In Writ Petition No.20652/2007, the challenge is against the objection regarding pay fixation in the light of the recovery ordered, which is under challenge in Writ Petition No.2315/2006. Since the said writ petition has been allowed, Writ Petition No.20652/2007 is also allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action to fix the revised pay scale in respect of the petitioners therein as sought for in Exts.P6 and P7 and grant consequential benefits. The same shall be done wpc 2315/06 & 20652/07 5 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/