IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 39052 of 2003(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SREEJA A., JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER,VALANCHERY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, VALANCHERY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 39052/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 04/09/2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 26/12/2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF V.H.S.S., VALANCHERY. P3: COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 12.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF V.H.S.S. VALANCHERY. P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11/02/2003 IN O.P.NO.4815/2003 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P5: COPY OF ORDER NO.D. DIS/14863/03/RA (3)/DPI DATED 13/05/03 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. P6: COPY OF G.O.(Rt)4218/2003/G.EDN. DATED 17/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION (E) DEPT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.39052 of 20-3-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the various orders passed by which the post to which she was appointed, stood cancelled. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade Hindi Teacher in the Upper Primary section of the Higher Secondary School. The appointment was with effect from 4.9.2001, as evident from Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, during the year 2001-2002 there were two posts of Junior Hindi Teachers and against the second post the petitioner was appointed. Ext.P2 is the copy of the staff fixation order for the year 2001-2002. By Ext.P3, for the next academic year the District Educational Officer reduced one post of Junior Hindi Teacher at the time of staff fixation. The Manager filed an appeal against the same under the relevant rules and the appeal was finally disposed of by the Joint Director of Public Instructions, as per Ext.P5. Therein, the view taken is that even during 2001-2002 also there was no post. The revision petition filed before the Government resulted in adverse order against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken in the impugned orders cannot be wpc 39052/2003 2 supported. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. 3. Going by the averments in para 3 of the counter affidavit, it can be seen that the student strength did not provide for sanction of four posts of H.S.A. (Hindi) and two posts of L.G. (Hindi) for the year 2001-2002 and it was only by an oversight the District Educational Officer sanctioned four posts of H.S.A. (Hindi) and two posts of L.G. (Hindi). During 2002-2003 also there was no change in the number of divisions sanctioned. It is pointed out that even during the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001- 2002 the District Educational Officer sanctioned two posts of L.G. (Hindi), but actually the school was eligible for only one post of L.G. (Hindi). The number of divisions sanctioned and the periods available for Hindi are detailed in para 5 of the counter affidavit. 4. This is a case where only because of want of sanction of divisions, the number of posts were reduced. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the relevant rules in the matter. Merely because the petitioner was appointed, she is not entitled to get approval. She was working against the second post of L.G. (Hindi) which was cancelled also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the year 2006-2007 onwards the petitioner was appointed in a regular post and she wpc 39052/2003 3 is continuing, but she was not paid salary for the earlier period covered by the impugned orders. Unless there is approval, the petitioner cannot claim salary for the said period. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/