IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 6107 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, NANDOORATHU, CHINGOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA(FULL TIME MENIAL, DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHERIYANADU). BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKARA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE CORPORATE MANGER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCHOOLS/SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SHRI A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J.. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6107 of 2008 B -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner (G.Radhakrishnan) he was appointed as a Full Time Menial in D.B.H.S., Vamanapuram from 1.6.2004 to 28.2.2005. He had a preferential right of appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. From 1.3.2005 to 9.7.2006, the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Menial in D.B.H.S.S., Thiruvalla, Again, from 10.7.2006 onwards he was appointed as Full Time Menial in D.B.H.S.S., Cheriyanadu. 2. The appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the District Educational Officers concerned on the ground that there was delay in submitting the proposals for approval. Ultimately the matter came to the consideration of the Additional Director of Public Instruction who passed Ext.P6 order dated 13.7.2007. The relevant portion of Ext.P6 order reads as follows:- “Accordingly Sri.Radhakrishnan was provided in DBHS Vamanapuram for the period from 10.7.2006. The Manager reported that the same is in order. The Dist. Edl. Officer concerned 2 reported that the appointment were rejected since it being belated. So in order to comply the judgment, the DEOs concerned are directed to approve the appointment of G.Radhakrishnan as FTM for the period from 1.6.2004 to 28.2.2005 in DBHS Vamanapuram (DEO, Attingal) and from 1.3.2005 to 9.7.2006 in DBHS Thiruvalla (DEO, Thiruvalla and from 10.2.2006 in DBHS Cheriyanad (DEO Mavelikkara) with delay condoned.” Sri. V.Raj Mohan 2nd petitioner had previous approved service as FTM from 30.1.02 to 22.3.02 in DBHS Cheriyanad. He is also a 51A claimants. So the DEO, Mavelikkara is directed to approve the re-appointment of Sri.V.Raj Mohan from 15.7.04 in the additional division vacancy at DBHS Cheriyanad as FTM. The Manager Devaswom Board Schools are directed adjust the lien of the Juniors if any under the management.” 3. In compliance with Ext.P6 order, the District Educational Officer, Attingal passed Ext.P7 order approving the appointment of the petitioner from 1.6.2004 to 28.2.2005. However, the District Educational Officers at 3 Thiruvalla and Mavelikkara did not pass any orders either approving or rejecting the claim for approval of the appointment of the petitioner for the respective periods of his service at the schools at Thiruvalla and Cheriyanad. The petitioner, thereupon, filed W.P. (C) No.35166/2007 before this Court which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 3.1.2008. This Court directed the District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara and the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Additional Director of Public Instruction. 4. Thereafter the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla passed Ext.P9 order dated 1.3.2005 and the District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara passed Ext.P10 order dated10.7.2006 approving the appointment of the petitioner. However, in Ext.P9 order the following endorsement was made:- “Endt. On B5/8945/07 dt.7.12.07. The appointment is approved as Probationary Full Time Menial from 1.11.2005 to 9.7.2006 (1.11.2005 is the date of joining duty) in the light of revision order No.ET(2) 15193/07/DPI K.Dis. dt.13.7.2007 of Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum.” Similarly in Ext.P10 order the following endorsement was made:- “Order No.B6.884/08/D.Dis. Dated 6.2.08. The appointment is approved as FTM wef 14.7.06 FN onwards in the promotion vacancy of Sri G.Rajesh Kumar as peon from 10.7.06 on the basis of the judgment dated 4 3.1.08 in WP(C) No.35166/07 and on the strength of the declaration submitted by the Corp. Manager TDB Schools, Thiruvananthapuram as per Order No.258/90/G.Edn. Dated 15.12.90.” 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsements contained in Exts.P9 and P10 which according to him would cause a break in service. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get his appointments for the respective periods approved as stated in Ext.P6 order and that the District Educational Officers were not entitled to pass orders changing the date from which the respective periods is to be reckoned. 6. On 21.2.2008, this Court passed an interim order in this Writ Petition which reads as follows:- “Govt. Pleader shall get instructions from respondents 2 and 3 why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for not approving the appointment of the petitioner as directed in Ext.P6 order and Ext.P8 judgment. Post after a week.” 7. After the said interim order, the Director of Public Instructions passed Ext.P11 order dated 2.4.2008, as if it is an erratum order, which reads as follows:- “In the order issued from this office the date mentioned in the 7th line 5th Para of the order was erroneously stated on 1.3.05 to 9.7.06 in D.B.H.S. Thiruvalla be read 5 as 1.11.05 to 9.7.06 and in the 8th line of the same Para 10.2.06 in D.B.H.S. Cheriyanadu be read as 14.7.06. The above order is modified to the above extent.” The petitioner has filed I.A.No.6055/2008 for amendment of the Writ Petition and an additional prayer to quash Ext.P11 is sought to be inserted in the Writ Petition. After hearing, I.A.No.6055/2008 was allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader submitted that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of on the basis of the materials on record. 9. Ext.P11 order was passed by the Director of Public Instructions after the Writ Petition was entertained and after the interim order dated 21.2.2008 was passed. The Director of Public Instructions, to my mind, ought not to have passed such an order when the matter is pending before this Court. If the respondents in the Writ Petition thought that there is a mistake in Ext.P6 order, that fact should have been brought to the notice of the Court and assisted the Court to pass appropriate orders after hearing all parties. Not only that it was not done but the Director of Public Instructions has passed Ext.P11 order without hearing the affected parties. Therefore, Ext.P11 is unsustainable as it is violative of the principles of natural justice. I quash Ext.P11 order. 11. It is conceded by all the parties that the matter can be disposed of by the Government and not by the Director of Public Instruction, taking into account all the relevant facts. I am of the view that this would be the correct approach in the matter, in view of the contention that the Director of 6 Public Instructions has no power to pass an erratum order and therefore he cannot deal with the matter further. The Government shall pass orders after hearing the petitioner, Devaswom Board and also Shri V.Rajmohan, Full Time Menial, D.B.H.S., Cheriyanad, who may be affected by an order that may be passed by the Government. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the reason why a mistake occurred in Ext.P6 order is that the Devaswom Board did not co-operate and did not produce all the relevant records. The standing counsel for Devaswom Board submitted that the Devaswom Board would co-operate with the proceedings before the Government and all the records and details would be submitted within the time stipulated. After hearing all the parties as mentioned above, the Government shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks