IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16287 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOD.T.K., THOPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KALLUR, PIN-680314, THRISSUR DIST. LANGUAGE TEACHER (HINDI JUNIOR)A.U.P.S., MAROTTICHAL THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,THRISSUR(EAST) 4. THE MANAGER, A.U.P.S., MAROTTICHAL, THRISSUR DIST. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16287 of 2009-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein was appointed as Language Teacher (Hindi) in A.U.P.S., Marottichal. He was appointed as such on 16.6.2008. It is stated that the said vacancy arose consequent on the retirement of another teacher on 31.5.2008. In the light of G.O.(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008, the approval was not granted by the third respondent. Ext.P1 is the Government Order dated 10.6.2008. The order passed by the Asst. Educational Officer is produced as Ext.P3. It is specifically recorded therein that the proposal for appointment has been examined in detail and as per Govt. Order dated 10.6.2008, if the period of appointment does not cover one academic year, the appointment shall be made only on daily wages. The said issue is now covered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604). In the above decision, it was 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 wpc 16287/2009 2 term of appointment need not be co-terminus 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, Ext.P3 by which approval is rejected, is quashed. The third respondent will pass fresh orders in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench in the above decision, 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 a copy of the wpc 16287/2009 3 judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/