IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19860 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINI T.M., W/O.SREEJITH S., AGED 28 YEARS, URDU TEACHER, A.U.P.SCHOOL, KUNNAMANGALAM EAST P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 571. BY ADV. SRI.JIJI THOMAS SRIG.B.SHAMJITH SMT.C.N.NOORUL HIDAYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCAIONAL OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 4. MANAGER, A.U.P.SCHOOL, KUNNAMANGALAM EAST, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 19860 of 2009-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Urdu Teacher working in A.U.P. School, in Kozhikode District. He was appointed as per Ext.P2, but the approval was rejected on the ground that it shall be on daily wages. The said order is produced as Ext.P3 herein. Ext.P3 order is passed in the light of G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008. Ext.P1 is the said Government Order. 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.P1 was under challenge in the above case. 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-terminous with 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: 2 “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. In the light of the above, Ext.P3 order is quashed. The third respondent will pass fresh orders regarding approval of appointment of the petitioner, in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench in the above decision, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/