IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14612 of 2009(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.NARAYANANKUTTY, MANAGER, EZHUVANTHALA EAST A.M.L.P. SCHOOL, EZHUVANTHALA P.O., NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 335. BY MR.M.R.RAJESH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. AJITH GHOSH.M., MOOPPATH HOUSE, EZHUVANTHALA P.O., NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 335. BY MR.A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14612 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is the Manager of Ezhuvanthala East A.M.L.P. School, Ezhuvanthala P.O., Nellaya, Palakkad District. The 4th respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher (LPSA) in the permanent vacancy which arose on 24.07.2008. Presently, the Educational Authority has granted approval for a period from 30.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 on daily wage basis as per G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.06.2008. 2. The matter was taken up in appeal, which was also rejected by Exhibit P2 in the light of the Government Order dated 10.06.2008. The validity of the above Government Order was under challenge in various writ petitions before this Court, which were disposed of by Exhibit P3 judgment by a Division Bench. It was held by the Bench that without amending the rules, the order cannot be pressed into service by the Government. It was further held that “.....In other words, if the vacancy is having a W.P.(C) No.14612/09 2 duration of one academic year or more, appointment can be made to fill up the same. The term of appointment need not be co-terminous with the term of the vacancy. If, in fact, the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, even if, there is some delay in making the appointment, such appointment will have to be approved....” Ultimately, in paragraph 12, the following directions were 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 be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment”. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the dictum laid down in Exhibit P3 judgment. Therefore, Exhibits P1 and P2 to the extent to which approval is granted only on daily wage basis are quashed. The petitioner has now moved the Assistant Educational Officer by W.P.(C) No.14612/09 3 way of Exhibit P5 representation and he has produced a copy of the judgment, Exhibit P3, along with the same. The 3rd respondent will pass fresh orders in the matter in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the light of the above direction, the revision petition filed by the petitioner as per Exhibit P4 has become unnecessary. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp