IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35341 of 2007(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JIJI JACOB T.C., S/O.LATE CHACKO, L.P.S.A., CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, RESIDING AT THOTTUPURATHU, NAGAPPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY MR.B.MOHANLAL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, BISHOPS HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 689. BY MR. MUHAMOOD T.T., SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35341/2007 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER No.K.DIS. 537/2006/F DTD. 13.2.06 ISSUED BY R3. EXT. P2 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER No.C/4822/2005 DTD. 27.10.05 ISSUED BY R4. EXT. P3 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER No.C/235/2006/K.DIS. DTD. 22.2.06 ISSUED BY R4. EXT. P4 : COPY OF ORDER No.V.DIS./3239/2006/C DTD. 12.12.06 ISSUED BY R3. EXT. P5 : COPY OF ORDER No.B1/441/2007/K.DIS DTD. 18.6.07 ISSUED BY R2. EXT. P6 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 4.6.07 ISSUED BY R5. EXT. P7 : COPY OF ORDER No.K.DIS/3835/2007/C. DTD. 4.10.07 ISSUED BY R3. EXT. P8 : COPY OF the G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.EDN. DTD. 17.8.05. EXT. P9 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.169/2004/G.EDN DTD. 15.6.04. EXT. P10 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.1/2005/G.EDN DTD. 1.1.05 ISSUED BY R1. EXT. P11 : COPY OF the CIRCULAR No.H2/91954/2005 DTD.31.8.05 ISSUED BY D.P.I. EXT. P12 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 14.11.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3. EXT. P13 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 12.10.06 IN W.P.(C) No.31924/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT. P14 : COPY OF the COMMUNICATION DTD. 31.5.08 ISSUED BY R5 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P15 : COPY OF JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009(2) KLT PAGE 105 IN ABDURAHIMAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35341 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is working as L.P.S.A under the 5th respondent-Corporate Educational Agency. The petitioner is having the qualification of S.S.L.C and T.T.C. Initially, the petitioner was appointed for a period from 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2005, which was approved by Exhibit P1. Subsequent appointment is for the period from 02.08.2005 to 13.12.2005 and the order of approval is produced as Exhibit P2. Exhibit P3 relates to the approval granted for appointment for the period from 03.01.2006 to 24.03.2006 and Exhibit P4 relates to the period from 16.06.2006 to 30.03.2007. The appointment as per Exhibit P4 was not approved and that was challenged by the Manager in appeal, and by Exhibit P5 the said appeal was also rejected. The petitioner was later appointed as per Exhibit P6 and the approval of the said appointment was declined by Exhibit P7. The approval of appointment during different spells is W.P.(C) No.35341/2007 2 on daily wage basis since the duration of vacancies is less than one academic year. 2. The petitioner relies upon Exhibit P13 judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that going by Rule 7(3) of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules, the appointment is liable to be approved. 3. Presently, the issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdurahiman vs. Government of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 105) wherein, in paragraph 14, it was held thus: “Up to 25.6.2005, it was possible to appoint persons to vacancies having a duration not less than two months. Such appointees, on being relieved, were treated as 51A claimants also. Even in the absence of any such rule, it is a well recognised principle in Industrial jurisprudence that a person retrenched from service should be preferred, when vacancy arises in future. Earlier, it was thought that the said benefit flowing from Chap. VA of the Industrial Disputes Act in favour of the workmen was available only if retrenchment is made after working for 240 days. So, in industries, persons appointed for one or two months, if retrenched, were entitled to get re-appointments when vacancies arise in W.P.(C) No.35341/2007 3 future. In the case of Educational institutions, the minimum incumbency period was fixed as two months. That is because a valid appointment can be made only if the vacancy extends beyond that period. Now, it is provided that appointments can be made, if only the duration of the vacancy is one academic year and only such incumbents are to be given preference in future appointments. But, the said amendment can in no way affect the rights accrued to persons, on the strength of their appointment to short duration vacancies exceeding two months, made earlier to the amendment. The right of them to get re-appointment was always recognised by R.51A. But, after 25.6.2005, one can be appointed if only the vacancy has a duration of one academic year. Therefore, naturally, such persons alone can get the right to re-appointment also. So, the interpretation sought to be advanced by the respondents that the writ petitioner has no right for re-appointment under R.51A, in view of the introduction of the first proviso to the said rule, cannot be accepted”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dictum laid down by the Division Bench squarely applies to this case also and therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 may be directed to consider grant of approval afresh in the light of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench. W.P.(C) No.35341/2007 4 Therefore, Exhibits P1 to P5 and P7 are set aside. Appropriate orders will be passed in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in Exhibit P13 as well as the Division Bench decision referred to above, within a period of three months. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in relation to Exhibit P5, the stipulation in Exhibit P8 Government Order may apply. This aspect will also be considered by the competent authority. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp