IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2093 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18330/2004 Dated 17/08/2005 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- V.H. MOHAMMED KUTTY, MANAGER, P.M.S.A. VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S SRI.DEVA PRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 4. ARTIST K.S., CHANDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R4 SRI.K.E.HAMZA GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.2093 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18330/2004. He approached this Court, challenging Ext.P7 order the Director of Public Instruction, directing to appoint the 4th respondent under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. The said order was quashed by this Court, mainly, relying on the submission of the 4th respondent that for the time being he is not in a position to join the post of Full Time Menial. For appointment to higher posts, his claim was upheld by the D.P.I. But, while quashing Ext.P7, the learned Single Judge said that the judgment will not stand in the way of 4th respondent staking his claim in the vacancy that may arise after April, 2008. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that to that extent the judgment is unsustainable. The said liberty given to the 4th respondent to move for appointment in future is hanging as the sword of Damocles over his head. Every time he proposes to make an appointment. The unsustainable claim of the 4th W.A.No.2093/2005 2 respondent is standing as a hurdle. It is also pointed out that after April, 2008, so far, the 4th respondent has not moved the appellant for any appointment. Relying on Exts.P11 and P12, it is submitted that the 4th respondent was, in fact, appointed, but he did not join duty also. 2. We find that the learned Single Judge did not say anything on the merits of the claim of the 4th respondent. Only liberty was given to him to represent in future and the Manager has to consider his application, if any, made on merits, in accordance with law. So, we notice that the contentions of the Manager that the 4th respondent is not entitled to get any appointment in future is not affected by the direction. It is declared so. In other words, the above direction will not stand in the way of the Manger, rejecting the claim of the 4th respondent on valid grounds. Therefore, it is unnecessary to vacate the direction of the learned Single Judge. With the above clarification, this writ appeal is closed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps