IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20506 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THUSHARA.M., D/O.SHRI.E.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT CHEMMATTAMANGAL, BELLA VILLAGE, HOSURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCAIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD, LAKSHMI NAGAR, KANHANGAD P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 315. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD, P.O.VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD-67 123. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 4. THE MANAGER, DURGA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANHANGAD, POST KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 315. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.20506 of 2009-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school managed by the 4th respondent, in the leave vacancy of one Smt. Seema, for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.3.2013. The leave was granted by the Government as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner was appointed on 12.6.2008 which is evident from Ext.P2 appointment order. The first respondent District Educational Officer rejected the approval of appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order, mainly because of G.O. (P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008 which is produced as Ext.P5 herein. Against Ext.P3, the Manager filed an appeal before the second respondent which was also rejected as per Ext.P4. 2. This court in a batch of cases, reported in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. Ext.P5 herein was under challenge in those cases. It was held that “if the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, appointment can be made to fill up the same. The term of appointment need not be co-terminus with wpc 20506/2009 2 the term of the vacancy. If, in fact, the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, even if, there is some delay in making the appointment, such appointment will have to be approved.” Ultimately, in para 12, a direction was issued as follows: “12. In the case of the writ petitioners in these cases, orders, if any passed, approving their appointments on daily wage basis, relying on Ext.P2 Government Order are quashed. All appointments, whether pending approval or already rejected, shall be considered/reconsidered by the Educational Officers concerned and fresh orders shall be passed in the light of the declaration of law made by us in W.P.(C) No.25176 of 2008. The salary found due to be paid to the incumbents concerned shall be released immediately. The action in this regard shall be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” 3. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh orders regarding the approval of appointment of the petitioner, in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench in the above decision. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with wpc 20506/2009 3 a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/