IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 2042 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28954/2008 Dated 03/10/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1. RT.REV.THOMAS MAR TIMOTHEOUS EPISOCPA, MANAGER, MAR THOMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHUNGATHARA P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DR.REENA MARY ABRAHAM, PRINCIPAL - IN - CHARGE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- W.A.No.2042 of 2008 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Koshy, J. The second petitioner was appointed as Principal in charge. But that was not approved by the Deputy Director (Exhibit P7). An appeal (Exhibit P8) was filed against Exhibit P7 order. It is pending consideration by the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the salary bill submitted for the month of September 2008 was rejected on the ground that appointment of the second petitioner as Principal in charge was not approved. But, the teachers and staff in the Higher Secondary School cannot be denied salary. In the above circumstances, we direct the third respondent to pass the salary bill of the teachers and at the maximum charge allowance due to the second petitioner alone can be withheld, pending disposal of the appeal. The second respondent should see to WA 2042/08 2 it that salary of the teachers and staff are not delayed because of the alleged non approval of appointment of the Principal in charge. Since the appeal is pending consideration by the second respondent, we are not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the appeal. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 14th October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv