IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10788 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. SREELEKHA, SEWING TEACHER, VAZHAPPALLY L.P.S., UMAYANALLOOR P.O. 2. K. ALIYARU KUNJU, MANAGER, VAZHAPPALLY L.P.S., UMAYANALLOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION(K) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10788/2008/H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/1/2002 IN O.P. NO.22237/2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/10/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE EDUCATION MINISTER. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/11/2007 OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.10788 of 2008 (H) ======================= Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as a Sewing Teacher by the 2nd petitioner in the Vazhappally LP School on 17.6.2005. However, the 4th respondent AEO refused to approve the same. The manager's appeal to the Deputy Director of Education did not meet with success. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision before the Government, which was also rejected by Ext.P3 letter. The petitioners' contention is that the rule as it stood prior to the amendment on 25.6.2005 permitted appointment of the petitioner and therefore the amendment made on 25.6.2005 cannot affect the validity of the appointment of the petitioner. 2. I have heard the contentions of the petitioner. I note that Rule 2 of Chapter XXIII was amended with retrospective effect from 6.3.1979, as a result of which the 1st petitioner's appointment becomes against the amended provisions. The 1st petitioner has not challenged the retrospective amendment also. W.P.(C) No.10788/2008/H -2- In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioners and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp /True copy/ P.A. to Judge