IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37176 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P. BINDU, UPSA, S.S.M.U.P SCHOOL, PUZHANAD, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CHITHRA.K, UPSA, S.S.M.U.P SCHOOL, PUZHANAD, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. G.S. SREEJA RANI, UPSA, S.S.M.U.P SCHOOL, PUZHANAD, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM. BY MR.P.N.MOHANAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER, S.S.M.U.P SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM. BY MR.V.SUMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 MR.DILEEP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.37176/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXTS.P1, P2 & P3: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS DATED 5.6.06 OF THE PETITIONERS. EXTS.P4, P5 & P6: COPY OF THE REJECTION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS DATED 22.12.06. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.09. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2009. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN,J ========================= W.P.(C).No.37176 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners were appointed as U.P.S.As' in the aided school managed by the 3rd respondent. The manager forwarded the appointment orders for approval to the Assistant Educational Officer. The A.E.O refused approval by Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders on the ground that one Smt.Preetha J.W filed a complaint raising claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of K.E.R. The manager rejected her claim. She filed a revision before the Government. The Government by Ext.P7 order directed her appointment in any one of the vacancies held by the petitioners. Ext.P7-order of the Government was challenged by the manager in W.P.(C) No.36445/08. The said Smt.Preetha J.W. also filed a Writ Petition No.1495/09 for implementation of Ext.P7 order. This Court by Ext.P8 judgment dated 17.9.2009 allowed the writ petition filed by the manager and dismissed the writ petition filed by Smt.Preetha.J.W. Therefore, the manager again approached the A.E.O for approval of the appointment of the petitioners. However, by Ext.P9 order, the Assistant Educational W.P.(C).No.37176/2009 2 Officer informed the manager that in the judgment in W.P.(C). No.36445/08 there is no direction to approve the appointments of the petitioners and therefore, orders are necessary from the Appellate Authority for approving the appointment of the petitioners. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “i)Call for the records leading to issue Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. ii)Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioners w.e.f. 5.6.06 and to pay all monitory benefits within the time frame fixed by this Court. iii)Declare that petitioners are entitled to get approval of their appointments w.e.f. 5.6.06 in view of Ext.P8 judgment of this Court.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. When this Court declared the rights of the parties in respect of a particular post, the A.E.O cannot refuse to consider the claim for W.P.(C).No.37176/2009 3 approval simply because this Court did not issue any specific direction to approve the appointment of the petitioner. The A.E.O is bound to consider the matter in the light of the declaration of the rights of the parties. Therefore, Ext.P9 order is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the manager and the petitioners for approval of the appointments of the petitioners in the light of Ext.P8 judgment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE dvs