IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 964 of 2009(B) ------------------------------- THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.194/2009 DATED 24/02/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN W.P.(C): --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KALLOORKKAD,MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IN THE W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RESMI SASI, UPSA,PANCHAYAT U.P.SCHOOL, VELLARANKALLU,KALLORKKAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY, KALLORKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH & MANAGER, PANCHAYATH U.P.SCHOOL,KALLORKKAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM. W.A. NO.964/2009-B: 4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA, R3 & R4 BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C, PSC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.964 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 1st respondent/writ petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of UPSA (Malayalam) in Ernakulam District, when PSC invited applications for the same. She was included in Ext.P2 rank list published by the PSC on 30.12.2006. The said list was intended for advising candidates to the schools run by the Grama Panchayats also. The Kalloorkad Grama panchayat made a requisition dated 8.7.2008 to the District Office of the PSC for advice of one candidate to the post of UPSA in the school run by it. Pursuant to the said requisition, the PSC advised the W.A. No.964/2009 - 2 - petitioner for appointment in that Panchayat school as per Ext.P3 dated 28.7.2008. The Panchayat Secretary appointed her in the Vellaramkallu U.P.School run by the Panchayat as per Ext.P4 order dated 13.8.2008. She joined duty in that school on 29.8.2008. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, as the Manager of the School, forwarded a proposal for approval of her appointment to the Assistant Educational Officer, Kalloorkadu. The said officer by Ext.P7 proceedings dated 1.12.2008 rejected approval of her appointment. The D.E.O. found that, as per the staff fixation order for the year 2008-2009, the total student strength of the school from standard 1 to VII was only 41 and therefore, it is an uneconomic school. As per the relevant orders, the vacancies in an uneconomic school can be filled up only by a protected teacher. If the duration of the vacancy is less than one academic year, the vacancy can be filled up only by a teacher on daily wage basis. On the above basis, approval of her appointment was rejected. W.A. No.964/2009 - 3 - In the above background, the petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 and also seeking consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, disposed of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions: “If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, it will be open to her to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings before the competent authority. If the Assistant Educational Officer finds that the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the school run by the Kalloorkad Grama Panchayat, he shall take necessary steps to shift the petitioner to another school run either by the department themselves or by any other local authority, in Ernakulam District. I also direct that irrespective of the decision taken by the Assistant Educational Officer, the petitioner will be entitled to salary and emoluments for the period during which she has worked in the school run by the Kalloorkad Grama Panchayat, for the reason that she did not intend to work gratuitously and was forced to work in the school only by reason of the advice by the Commission and consequential appointment by the Manager. Arrears of salary and allowances payable to the petitioner shall be computed and disbursed within two months from today.” W.A. No.964/2009 - 4 - Feeling aggrieved by the above directions, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The Panchayat, which is the Educational Agency, and its Secretary, who is the Manager, without any regard to the relevant Government Orders have sent requisition to the PSC which resulted in advice of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. If she was not advised to that Panchayat School, she would have got employment in some other Government U.P.School. This is evident from the fact that her juniors in the rank list had already been advised and appointed as evident from Ext.P10. So, we think that the Panchayat should be held responsible for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period she has actually worked in that school, that is, from 29.8.2008 to 9.7.2009, the date on which she was actually relieved though the notional date of relief is 1.12.2008. This the Panchayat shall pay within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that she has already been W.A. No.964/2009 - 5 - advised and appointed in a Government School in December, 2009. The 1st respondent's claim for restoration of seniority etc. are left open. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps