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. 5731 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.P.SAMEERA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), A.M.M.HIGH SCHOOL, PULIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 5. P.P.ABDU SAMAD, MANAGER, A.M.M.H.S. AND L.P.S., PULIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD R5 BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE R5 BY ADV. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.5731/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3829/08/G.EDN. DTD. 22.8.08. P2:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 16.6.05 WP(C) NO.18030/05. P2(a):- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 27.2.06 IN WPC. 18030/05. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC. NO.1102/06 DTD. 5.7.07. P4:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 31.7.06. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS B4/5323/06 DTD. 15.2.07 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS /B2/9797/07 DTD. 28.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3980/08/G.EDN. DTD. 1.9.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11.7.08 IN WPC. NO.18030/045. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.5731/2009-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the denial of approval of appointment as High School Assistant (Physical Science) from 31/07/2006 to 28/07/2011. The petitioner was originally appointed as U.P.S.A from 05/06/2004 to 02/09/2004 and 03/09/2004 to 07/03/2005 by the fifth respondent Manager. The said appointment was directed to be approved as per Ext.P1. Therefore, the petitioner is clearly a Rule 51A claimant. 2. There was a dispute regarding the Managership of the school and approval of appointment of Manager Shri P.P.Kunhalikutty was challenged in W.P.(C).No.18030/2005 and there was an interim order of stay was in force as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P2(a). Later, a contempt of court case was filed by Shri P.P.Kunhalikutty alleging non compliance of the interim order Ext.P2, where the new appointments were prohibited. The proceedings were dropped by Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the order of appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. and by Ext.P5, approval was rejected for the reason that Exts.P2 and P2(a) prohibited the Manager (5th respondent) from taking policy decisions. The appeal filed by the Manager was also rejected by W.P.(C). No.5731/2009 -:2:- Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is the order passed in revision. 2. The writ petition, W.P.(C).No.18030/2005, concerning the dispute of Managership was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment. Presently, the admitted facts show that the fifth respondent is continuing as Manager even now with approval. At the time of rejection of approval of appointment of the petitioner, the earlier appointment was not approved, but only by Ext.P1, dated 22/08/2008, the petitioner's appointment as U.P.S.A was approved. Therefore, obviously, the petitioner is eligible for Rule 51A claim. 3. In that view of the matter, it can be safely be concluded that the direction in Ext.P2 may not squarely apply as far as the petitioner is concerned. Since the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant, the rejection of approval cannot be justified. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P5, P6 and P7 are quashed. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to pass fresh orders approving the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 31/07/2006 to 28/07/2011. Orders as above will be passed within one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner will be entitled for the consequential monetary benefits accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms