IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20898 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MERCY SEBASTIAN, UPSA, ST.GEORGE UP SCHOOL, VAZHATHOPE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ARAKULAM. 4. THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE MANAGER, DIOCESE OF IDUKKI, BISHOP'S HOUSE. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.20898 of 2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is working as U.P.S.A. in St. George U.P. School, Vazhathope, Idukki District, managed by the 4th respondent. She was appointed as such with effect from 6.6.2009 in a permanent vacancy. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order of appointment. The proposal to approve the appointment has been withheld by the third respondent in the light of Exts.P2 and P2(a) Government Orders dated 10.6.2008 and 15.6.2004. The issue regarding the validity of the said Govt. Orders was finally settled by this court in Exts.P3 and P3(a) judgments. 2. This court in Ext.P3 judgment in a batch of cases, held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. The Government Order dated 10.6.2008 was under challenge in those cases. 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 wpc 20898/2009 2 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, 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. Thereafter, by Ext.P4(a), the Manger forwarded a copy of the above judgment to the third respondent for taking necessary action in the matter of approval of appointment of the petitioner. By Ext.P5, the appointment order along with other documents, have been returned by the third respondent stating that the Government has decided to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is pointed out that in respect of other schools, by Exts.P6 and P6(a), orders have been passed granting approval. 4. Merely because there is a decision to file a Special Leave Petition wpc 20898/2009 3 against the judgment of this court, the respondents cannot refuse to pass orders on the application for approval of appointment. 5. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 is quashed. There will be a direction to the third respondent to pass orders on the application for approval on its merits in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Ext.P3 judgment, 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 writ petition before the third respondent for compliance. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/