IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15963 of 2009(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. RAJANI GEORGE, W/O.JOYAL JOSE, NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, OLLUKARA P.O., HSA (ENGLISH) ST.MARY'S H.S., CHENGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SHERLY E.K., W/O.BIJU DOMINIC T., THALAKKOTTUKARA HOUSE, P.O.ENAMAKKAL, HSA (MALAYALAM), ST.MARY'S H.S.CHENGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. T.BETTY THOMAS, W/O.GEORGE PAUL E., ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE, CHRIST NAGAR, P.O.CHEVOOR, UPSA, ST.MARY'S HS, CHENGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.JIJO PAUL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR-680 005. BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15963 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are working as H.S.A (English), H.S.A (Malayalam) and U.P.S.A in St. Mary's H.S., Chengaloor, Thrissur District. It appears that they have been appointed in regular vacancies, but the appointments were not approved by the 3rd respondent for the reason that as per G.O.(P) No.104/2008/ G.Edn dated 10.06.2008, the approval can only be on daily wages. Exhibit P1 is the said Government Order. Exhibit P2 is the appointment order in respect of the 1st petitioner and Exhibit P3 is the order rejecting the approval. Exhibit P4 is the appointment order in respect of the 2nd petitioner and Exhibit P5 is the order rejecting the approval. As regards the 3rd petitioner, Exhibit P6 is the copy of the appointment order and the order rejecting approval of appointment is produced as Exhibit P7. It is stated that petitioners 2 and 3 were appointed in vacancies which arose due to grant of leave without allowance to the incumbents. W.P.(C) No.15963/2009 2 Learned Government Pleader points out that unless leave has been sanctioned properly, the appointments may not be regular. 2. Presently, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioners as per the Division Bench decision of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 604). In paragraph 7 of the said judgment it was held that the offending conditions in Exhibit P2 Government Order cannot stand with the statutory rules. Therefore, for enforcing them, the relevant rules require amendment. As long as the rules are not amended, Exhibit P2 cannot be pressed into service by the Government. 3. Finally in paragraph 12, the following directions have been issued: “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 W.P.(C) No.15963/2009 3 be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment”. In the light of the above, Exhibits P3, P5 and P7 are quashed. The District Educational Officer will pass fresh orders in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench above which will govern this case also. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above before the District Educational Officer for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp