IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15488 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.H.SHIHABUDHEEN,JUNIOR ARABIC TEACHER (LS),C.P.N.U.P.SCHOOL,VATTAMKULAM,EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER,C.P.N.U.P.SCHOOL,VATTAMKULAM EDAPPAL,MALAPPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, EDAPPAL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ADV.SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.15488/2009-E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner herein is Junior Arabic Teacher (LS) of the school managed by the second petitioner. He was appointed as a leave substitute from 11/06/2003 to 07/08/2003 which was approved by the third respondent. This is followed by another spell of appointment as a substitute with effect from 08/08/2003 to 09/06/2008 which also has been approved. A leave vacancy arose consequent on the leave without allowance availed by one Shaly K.Aboobacker for going abroad from 10/06/2008 to 31/12/2012. Even though the petitioner was appointed, the approval has not been granted by the District Educational Officer on the ground that the G.O. (P) No.104/2008 dated 10.6.2008, does not provide for approval of appointment in such cases. It is mentioned in Ext.P1 that even though the said Government Order has been stayed by this Court, no further orders have been passed by this Court, and no directions have been issued from higher authorities also. 2. The said Government Order was under challenge in various writ petitions before this Court. This court in Unni Narayanan v. State of W.P.(C). No.15488/2009 -:2:- Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. It was held that “if the vacancy is having a 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 para 12, a direction was issued as follows: “12. 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.” 3. In the light of the above, the District Educational Officer will reconsider the grant of approval of appointment. Ext.P1 is therefore quashed. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment of the Division W.P.(C). No.15488/2009 -:3:- Bench along with a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms