IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 588 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3445/2010 Dated 23/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE MANAGER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALAYANCHIRANGARA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. M.SANKAR, UPSA, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALAYANCHIRAGNARA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY GOVT. PLEADR SMT. R.BINDU FOR R2 TO R4 ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R1 SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R1 SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.SADEESAN FOR R1 SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A. No. 588 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman,J. The writ appeal is against an order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant Manager to appoint the writ petitioner as UPSA with effect from 2.6.2008 and a further direction to the DEO to approve the same. It was also directed by the impugned order to the Deputy Director of Education to initiate proceedings for disqualification of the Manager for non compliance with the orders of the educational authorities and directing the Manager to pay salary and allowances to the petitioner with effect from 2.6.2008 till the date of appointment. 2. As a matter of fact, the writ petition is still pending. Going by the order, it cannot then said to be in the nature of an interim relief granted. Admittedly, the Manager appointed the first respondent/writ petitioner by Ext.P1 as UPSA with effect from 14.6.2006. The Department however did not approve that appointment but directed the Manager to accommodate the petitioner in the vacancy that arose on 2.6.2008. It is the contention of the Manager that there two more vacancies arose to which two other candidates were appointed and as against Ext.P4 order, they have also preferred a revision before the DPI and is pending. 3. After hearing the parties, we find that admittedly when the writ petitioner was appointed with effect from 14.6.2006, the appointment of W.A.No.588/2010 2 the petitioner should have been approved first. But in spite of Ext.P4 order, petitioner's appointment is not approved and no salary is paid to him. Therefore, as an interim measure, we direct the DEO to approve the appointment of the petitioner provisionally with effect from 2.6.2008. The DPI will dispose of the revision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks after hearing the manager and other affected teachers including the petitioner. The final approval of the appointment will be subject to the orders that may be passed by the DPI. The other directions contained in the interim order shall be kept in abeyance subject to the final order that may be passed in the writ petition. The interim arrangement as above directing to provisionally approve the appointment of the petitioner will be without prejudice to the contentions raised by the parties in the revision pending before the DPI. The revision will be disposed of untrammelled by the interim arrangement so made and the authorities shall pay salary to the petitioner accordingly. The writ appeal is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN, (JUDGE ) P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps W.A.No.588/2010 3 W.A.No.588/2010 4