IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21620 of 2009(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BEENA K.THOMAS, U.P.S.A., M.G.M. U.P.SCHOOL, KOTTAMALA, CHITTARIKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY MR.P.J.MATHEW, ADVOCATE. MR.K.B.ARUNKUMAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHITTARIKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. MANAGER, CATHOLICATE & M.D.SCHOOLS, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM-38. BY MR. T.T. MUHAMOOD, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21620 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is working as U.P.S.A in M.G.M U.P.School, Kottamala in Kasaragod District. She was appointed as such by Exhibit P1 dated 06.06.2008. Exhibit P2 is the order rejecting approval of appointment of the petitioner. In the said order, the Assistant Educational Officer took the view that the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 06.06.2008 to 31.03.2009 can be made only on daily wage basis and therefore, the same is rejected. Obviously, the approval is restricted on daily wages in the light of G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.06.2008 (Exhibit P3). Exhibits P2 and P3 are challenged in this writ petition. 2. The validity of Exhibit P3 Government Order was under challenge in various writ petitions before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 604) has held in paragraph 7 that the offending W.P.(C) No.21620/2009 2 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 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”. In the light of the above, Exhibit P2 to the extent to which approval is given only on daily wage basis is quashed. The Assistant Educational Officer will pass fresh orders in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench above which will W.P.(C) No.21620/2009 3 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 petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above before the Assistant Educational Officer for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp