IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33529 of 2009(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MOOSAKKUTTY PUTHUVALAPPAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, AIDED HIGH SCHOOL-PAREL MAMPATTUMOOLA, P.O.KOORAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33529 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in an aided High School, Parel Mampattumoola on 20.11.2006 in a promotion vacancy. Since the approval of the same was granted only on daily wage basis as per G.O.(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10.06.2008, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.23999/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P5 judgment where in the operative portion, it was held thus: “In the light of the above, Ext.P4 as far as it limits the approval for the period from 20.11.2006 to 31.05.2007 on daily wage basis, is set aside. The District Educational Officer 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 produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Division Bench W.P.(C) No.33529/2009 2 judgment referred to above, before the authority concerned for compliance”. 2. Presently, the petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P6 proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Wandoor wherein the proposal for approval of appointment has been rejected on the ground that Government have decided to file Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Division Bench in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the decision taken by the Government to file a Special Leave Petition shall not be taken as a ground to reject the application for approval of appointment. This Court has already directed the District Educational Officer to consider the grant of approval in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench, as per Exhibit P5 judgment. It is pointed out that clearly Exhibit P6 goes against the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P5 judgment, which is binding on the District Educational Officer. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Special Leave Petition is still pending. The stand taken in Exhibit P6 cannot at all be supported. There is positive direction W.P.(C) No.33529/2009 3 in Exhibit P5 to consider the grant of approval. A reading of Exhibit P6 shows that nothing has been considered on the said aspect. Therefore, it cannot be termed as a decision as regards the proposal to grant approval. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25708/2009 wherein also similar objection was raised by the respondents relying upon the decision of the Government to file a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the Division Bench in Unni Narayanan's case (supra). Paragraph 6 of the judgment in W.P.(C)No. 25708/2009 is extracted below: “The learned Government Pleader submitted that the State has filed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604). But the pendency of the S.L.P. need not deter the District Educational Officer from passing appropriate orders in the matter in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench.....”. In that view of the matter, Exhibit P6 is quashed. There will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to pass orders as W.P.(C) No.33529/2009 4 directed in Exhibit P5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is allowed as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp