IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 4546 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYASREE.G., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SANSKRIT), AEPM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, IRUMPANAGAD, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), KOLLAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4546 of 2008(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.05.06.2006 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER. EXT.P1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF STATEMENT ACCOMPANIED THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. P2/3983/06 DT. 02.08.2007 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 21.08.2007 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 10.09.07 IN WP(C) 26836/07 (T).. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. GO(Rt) NO. 5861/07/E. Edn. DT. 2612.2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 4546 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 29th May, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as HSA ( Sanskrit) in the AEPM Higher Secondary School, Irumpanangad. She was appointed as HSA (Sanskrit) against the retirement vacancy of one Sambasivan who retired from service on 31.05.2006. Ext.P1 is the appointment order of the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that there was a vacancy of HSA (Sanskrit) at the time when the petitioner was appointed. Exts. P1 and P2 are relied on in support of that contention. 2. The District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order dated 02.08.2007 on the ground that the Manager had not complied with the departmental directions and orders passed by this Court to appoint a claimant in the category of non-teaching staff under Rule 51 B of K.E.R. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order before the Government . The Government passed Ext. P6 order confirming the order passed by the District Educational Officer. The relevant portion of Ext.P6 order is as follows: “4. Government have examined the case in detail with the reports of Educational Officers. The Director of Public Instruction reports that Smt. M.G. Ambili is a 51 B claimant for the post of Full Time Menial under dying in harness scheme. The claim of Smt. Ambili was rejected by the Manager. In the appeal filed by Smt. Ambili, the Director of Public Instruction set aside the order passed by the Manager and the same was confirmed by the subsequent order passed by Government. W.P.(C) No. 4546 OF 2008 2 5. Smt. Ambili filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court and the Court in the judgment dated 16.08.2006 has directed to the Director of Public Instruction to take follow up action for implementation of the order within 1 months from 16.08.2006. Accordingly, the Director of Public Instruction issued direction to the Manager to implement the orders passed by the Educational authorities. But the Manager had not implemented the direction of the Educational authorities. 6. In the circumstances, the request in the Ext. P4 cannot be considered and is therefore rejected. “ 3. The reasons stated in Exts. P3 and P6 for not approving the appointment of the petitioner is absolutely unsustainable. Whether the Manager has complied with the directions in the matter of appointment of a claimant in the category of non-teaching staff under Rule 51 B of K.E.R is not relevant for considering the question whether the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Sanskrit) should be approved or not. If the Manager has not complied with the departmental directions, appropriate action could be taken against him. The relevant matters to be considered for granting approval of the appointment of an HSA were not taken note of by the District Educational Officer. The only reason stated by him in Ext.P3 order is that the Manager has not complied with the departmental directions in respect of the appointment of a claimant in the category of non-teaching staff under Rule 51 B of K.E.R. Since the reason stated in Ext.P3 order for not approving the appointment of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable, I am of the view that Ext.P3 order and Ext.P6 order passed by the Government confirming the order of the District Educational Officer, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Exts. P3 and P6 are quashed. The District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara shall consider the question of approval of W.P.(C) No. 4546 OF 2008 3 appointment of the petitioner afresh taking into account the relevant facts and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from today. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk