IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 21010 of 2001(A) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ALIAS K. JSEPH, S/O. K.V.JOSEPH, AGED 26 YEARS, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, POTHANICAD-686 671. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. SRI.JAMES VARGHESE, NEDUMCHALIL HOUSE, POTHANICAD, MANAGER (ELECTED) ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL POTHANICAD-686 671. 4. THE HEADMISTRESS, ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, POATHANICAD-686 671. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI FOR R1, R2 ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR R3 ADV. SRI.P.A.SIRAJUDHEEN FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO.21010/2001-A ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.50347/2001 IN O.P. NO.21010/2001 DISMISSED 16/09/2008. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt).NO.5155/2000/G. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.5896/2001 IN O.P. NO.3567/2001-Y. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.15138/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 21010 OF 2001 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th September 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to issue orders appointing the petitioner as H.S.A. (Malayalam) with effect from 6.6.2001 and to direct that her appointment for the aforesaid period be approved and she be disbursed the salary and other allowances. According to the petitioner, she had an initial service covered by Ext. P1 for the period from 13.7.2000 to 28.1.2001. On the strength of Ext. P1 it is contended that she was entitled to claim the benefits under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. According to the petitioner there arose a vacancy from 6.6.2001 and that in view of the management dispute, regular appointment could not be made. It is stated that during the said period, at the request of the 4th respondent, he has been taking classes without obtaining any remuneration. While continuing so, petitioner submits that, regular appointment was granted to him O.P.No.21010/2001 (A) - 2 - and that the appointment has subsequently been approved and he has been paid salary also. 2. In this original petition what is actually claimed by the petitioner is that his service from 17.8.2001 which is presently approved, should be preponed to 6.6.2001 when he commenced service. As already noticed, in order to sustain his claim what is relied on by the petitioner is Ext. P4 and that there was a sanctioned post available. The stand in Ext.P4 certificate, is reiterated by the 4th respondent in her counter affidavit also. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also relying on Ext. P7 judgment rendered by this Court taking the view that if the petitioner therein had worked in a sanctioned post her salary and allowances shall be released. Counsel also relies on the judgment in Valsamma Joseph v. St. Thomas College {1993 (2 KLT S.N. Case No. 28}. 4. However, what is noticed is that apart from Ext.P4 certificate there is not even an order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner. There may have been a management dispute and that the dispute may have been resolved only O.P.No.21010/2001 (A) - 3 - subsequently, but then the fact remains that the petitioner has not been appointed from 6.6.2001 in any manner as is permissible in the KER. In view of this, I am not prepared to be guided purely by the self serving certificate issued by the 4th respondent and uphold the petitioner's claim for approval, salary and other benefits for the period from 6.6.2001. 5. True, the right of an employee who has rendered work for salary and other allowances has been recognized by this Court in the judgments referred to above, but then the fact remains that in this case, petitioner has not succeeded in producing any document to show that he was appointed as lecturer from 6.6.2001 in the manner known to law. If that be so I am not prepared to direct that her appointment is liable to be approved with effect from 6.6.2001 and that the petitioner should get monetary benefits flowing therefrom. Original petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/- O.P.No.21010/2001 (A) - 4 - ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 21010 of 2001 A = = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 16th September, 2008.