IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17038 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANTI T.J.S/O.JOSEPH.T.D. AGED 29 HSA,(PHYSICAL EDUCATION) ST.ALBERT'S H.S.S.ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S. SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION GOVT.SERETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, O/O.THE DIRECTO OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TRIVANDRUM-14. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, O/O.DEO,ERNAKULAM. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY ARCHDIOCESE OF VARAPPUZHA ST.ALBER'S CAMPUS, KOCHI -18. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.17038 of 2009-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein was appointed as H.S.A. (Physical Education) by the 5th respondent Manager from 1.11.2007. It is pointed out that the petitioner was appointed in a substantive vacancy which arose due to the voluntary retirement of one Shri Mathew Antony with effect from 1.11.2007. The apparent objection taken by the competent authority to grant approval is in the light of Ext.P2 Govt. Order Dated 10.6.2008 and an earlier Govt. Order dated 15.6.2004. Now, going by the endorsement in Ext.P1, the appointment has been approved on daily wage basis for the period from 1.11.2007 to 31.3.2008 and from 2.6.2008 on regular basis. The same stands confirmed in Ext.P3. 2. This court in a batch of cases, reported in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. Ext.P2 herein, 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-terminus wpc 17038/2009 2 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, 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.P1 to the extent to which approval is given only on daily wage basis, as also Ext.P3 by which the second respondent rejected the appeal filed by the Manager, are quashed. The fourth respondent 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 petitioner will wpc 17038/2009 3 produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, before the fourth respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/