IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32602 of 2006(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.MOHANA KUMAR, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER (HS), VENMANI GRAMA SABHA SANGAM AMBIKODAYAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (VGSSA HSS), NEDIYAVILA, KUNNATHUR EAST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. M.G.PRADEEP LAL PANICKER, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER (UP), BABY JOHN SHASTIABDAPOURTHI MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (BJSM HSS), THAZHAVA NORTH, KUTHIRAPANDHY, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKARA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, VGSSA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEDIYAVILA, KUNNUTHUR EAST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, BJSM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THAZHAVA NORTH, KUTHIRAPANDHI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R5 SRI.A.R.DILEEP FOR R5 SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN FOR R5 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32602 of 2006 A P P E N D I X PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULARISATION OF APPOINTMENTS BY GOVERNMENT G.O(MS).NO.113/2000/G.EDN. DATD 6/4/2000 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DPI CIRCULAR NO.H4-29303/2000/DPI DT.4/1/02 DIRECTING TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENTS. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER NO.32022/K1/2000/G.EDN.DT.4/5/2001 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DPI LETTER NO.H4/29303/2000/DPI DT.15/11/2001, CLARIFICATION OF 2ND PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEO, KOTTARAKKARA LETTER NO.B6/3040/06, DT.6/5/06, DIRECTING TO RECOVER THE SALARY FROM THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM DEO, KOTTARAKKARA, DO L.NO.B1-2660/06 DT. 28/09/2006 TO RECOVER THE SALARY FROM 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.97/06 DT.6/10/2006, DIRECTING TO RE-PAY THE SALARY OF 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.12/06/2006 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE DEO. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.12/10/2006 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE DEO. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.29/09/2006 BY THE HIGH COURT IN WP(C).NO.33724/2005 FOR STAY EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.17/08/2009 IN WPC NO.33724/2005 \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.32602/2006-F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are working as Physical Education Teachers in Plus 2 and U.P Section under respondent Nos.5 and 6. They were appointed on 03/01/1994 and 30/10/1992 and are continuing even now without any break in service. The first petitioner was appointed in the U.P Section initially and later from June 1999 he was accommodated in the High School Section. The second petitioner was originally appointed in the U.P Section on 30/10/1992 and he continued upto 31/03/1993. Subsequently, he was reappointed from 07/06/1993 and is still continuing. 2. The approval of appointment of various Physical Education Teachers was ordered by the Government as per Ext.P1. The petitioners' appointments were thus approved pursuant to the said order. Exts.P2 and P4 are the orders by which the Director of Public Instruction directed to approve the appointments of the petitioners from the date from which they were appointed if their appointments are otherwise in order. They have received salary also. While so the first petitioner was served with Ext.P5 communication of the District Educational Officer addressed to the W.P.(C). No.32602/2006 -:2:- Headmistress seeking recovery of salary paid to the first petitioner prior to the date of re-opening of school 2000-01. Ext.P6 is the D.O letter of the District Educational Officer directing recovery to be effected from the salary drawn by the second petitioner till the reopening day of 2000-01. Consequently, the second petitioner was served with Ext.P7 letter of the Headmaster informing about the said recovery. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit it is averred that the appointment of the first petitioner was approved as Physical Education Teacher from 03/01/1994 to 30/03/1994 and from 06/06/1994 onwards in terms of G.O (MS).No.113/2000/G.Edn., dated 06/04/2000. The stand taken further is that the Director of Public Instruction as per letter No.H4/29303/2000/DPI, dated 06/01/2005 has reviewed and cancelled the earlier direction dated 04/01/2002 (Ext.P2) to approve the appointment of 54 Physical Education Teachers from the dates of their appointment. 4. In similar writ petitions, this Court has held that the approval of appointment granted originally is proper and valid. 5. Ext.P11 is the copy of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.33724/2005 filed by certain other teachers included in Ext.P1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of Ext.P11 judgment. In fact, the very same issue was considered in detail by W.P.(C). No.32602/2006 -:3:- this Court in an earlier judgment in W.P.(C).No.2315/2006 and connected cases, following which Ext.P11 judgment was rendered. Paragraph (6) of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.2315/2006 is extracted in Ext.P11, which reads thus:- “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 regularised 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 appointment from the dates shown therein. The same W.P.(C). No.32602/2006 -:4:- 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.” 6. The petitioners are similarly placed, being persons included in Ext.P1 order. Actually, the Government had directed to regularise all those persons in service. The reasoning adopted in Ext.P11 judgment squarely applies to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the impugned orders Ext.P5, P6 and P7 are quashed. It is declared that the approval of appointments of the petitioners pursuant to Ext.P1 is to be treated as valid and they are entitled for consequential benefits also. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms