IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20849 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MOHAN RAO P., MANAGER, BAKRABAIL AUPS, PATHUR, MANJESWARA, KASARGODE. 2. T.PREMA BHAT, MANAGER, SREE VIDYA VARDHAKA HIGH SCHOOL, MIYAPADAVU, KASARAGOD. 3. P.S.VISWAMITHRA BHAT, MANAGER, S.N.HIGH SCHOOL, PERLA, KASARGODE. 4. PARAMESWARI AMMA, MANAGER, VIDYARANYA ALP SCHOOL, P.O.BERIPADAVU, KASARGODE. 5. M.A.RAVINDRA, MANAGER, J.A.B.S., MANYA, P.O.ULLODI, KASARGODE. 6. K.SHAMA BHATT, MANAGER, MSC HIGH SCHOOL, PERDALA, NEERCHAL, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 7. K.SHANKARA NARAYANA SHARMA, MANAGER, AIDED SENIOR BASIC SCHOOL, KUNTIKANA PO., KASARGODE. 8. P.G..SHANKARA NARAYANA BHAT, MANAGER, VALP SCHOOL, UKKINADKA P.O., KASARGODE. 9. SOMASEKHARA T.S., MANAGER, SREE SHARADAMBA HIGH SCHOOL, SHENI, P.O.MAIRE, KASARGODE. 10. M.SANKARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 76, MANAGER, A.J.B.S., PUTHIGE, P.O.PUTHIGE, KASARGODE. S/O. C.H.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AISWARYA, PADINHATAM KOZHUVAL, NEELESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARGODE. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KASARGODE. 6. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUMBALA AT BADIADUKA, KASARGODE. 7. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANJESHWARA, KASARGODE. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20849/2009-A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are managers of different schools. They are aggrieved by the refusal of educational authority to approve the appointments in the light of G.O.(P).No.104/08/G.Edn., dated 10/06/2008, namely, Exts.P4, P4(a), P5 to P12 and P12(a) to P12(c) wherein approval has been granted only on daily wage basis. 2. Now the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604), wherein it was held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. 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: “12. In the case of the writ petitioners in these cases, orders, if any passed, approving their appointments on daily wage basis, W.P.(C). No.20849/2009 -:2:- 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, Exts.P4, P4(a), P5 to P12, P12(a) to P12 (c) to the extent to which approval is given only on daily wages basis are quashed. The Educational Officer concerned will pass fresh orders 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 petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Division Bench judgment referred to above, before the authority concerned for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms