IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24599 of 2007(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.S. JIMMISHAN, CLERK, MULAMANA H.S.S., ATTINGAL, EDUCATION DISTRICT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.T. MOHAMMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22114 OF 2009 AND WPC NO. 24651 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 24599/2007-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.46/2006/G.EDN. DATED 01/02/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RE-COMMUNICATION DATED 01/07/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/12/2006 IN WP(C) NO. 34234/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2199/2007/G.EDN. DATED 21/05/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LIST WHICH CONTAINS THE TEACHERS WHO GOT APPROVAL IN THE SCHOOLS OPENED AFTER 1979. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE TEACHERS WHO GOT APPOINTMENT IN THE SCHOOLS WHERE ONE PROTECTED TEACHER WAS APPOINTED AND THAT PROTECTED TEACHER RELIEVED FROM SERVICE CONSEQUENT TO THE VACANCY AROSE IN HIS/HER PARENT SCHOOL OR CONSEQUENT TO THE SELECTION MADE BY PSC AND THEREAFTER NO PROTECTED TEACHER WAS APPOINTED BY THE AIDED SCHOOL MANAGEMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.24599 & 24651 OF 2007 AND No.22114 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.Mulavana High School Anakudy is one stated to have been opened in 1982 and therefore, it is a newly opened school as conceived by Rule 6 to Chapter V, KER. Its Manager, who is the petitioner in W.P(C).22114/09, appointed the petitioner in W.P(C).24651/07 as HSA (Hindi) and the petitioner in W.P(C). 24599/07 as a member of the non-teaching staff. When those appointment orders went up for approval, they were objected to, on the ground that teachers retrenched from other schools, protected in terms of the Government Order compelling newly opened schools to make appointments, have been totally given a go-bye and the Manager of the Mulavana High School had not appointed even a single protected teacher and thereby, was dis-entitled to make any other appointment. It is in this context that these writ petitions are filed. WPC.24599/07 & co. cases 2 2.There is abundant materials on record, by which the petitioners attempt to demonstrate that in the cases of different other newly opened schools, approvals were granted for appointments even when protected teachers were not appointed. This was done by obtaining undertakings from the Mangers of those schools that they would make appointments of protected teachers. The obligation is to appoint at least one protected teacher. 3.With the passage of time, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C).24599/07 and W.P(C).24651/07 point out that the Manger has appointed a protected teacher. This means that the obligation to make appointment of protected teachers is pleaded to have been satisfied. If that be so, there is no reason why the yardsticks applied to other cases shall not be extended to the case of the petitioners. But this would depend upon the verification of facts regarding the newly appointed protected teacher, as pointed out. WPC.24599/07 & co. cases 3 In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders, in so far as they are against the writ petitioners are vacated and the Government, the first respondent in all these writ petitions, are directed to consider the case, having regard to the so- called appointment of a protected teacher. The relevant date to be treated as the date of approval of the appointment of the petitioners in W.P(C).Nos.24599/07 and 24651/07 will also be fixed taking into consideration all relevant aspects, including the fact that appointments in similar cases have been approved on the basis of undertakings by the Managers that appointment of protected teachers would be made. Let the Government take a final decision in this matter without fail within an outer limit of three months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment since it is stated that the petitioners in W.P(C).Nos.4651/07 and 24599/07 are still left with no payment towards salary and other drawables. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.6/08.