IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21549 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SYAMKUMAR, S/O.C.N.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI SWARNAMALA HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA (UPSA, NSS HIGH SCHOOL, KUNNAMTHANAM.) BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 21549 of 2009-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner entered service as a part time H.S.A. on 20.7.1998 in the NSS High School, Othara which was approved by the third respondent and he became a full time H.S.A. with effect from 19.7.2003. The petitioner was reverted as per Ext.P1 order alleging that due to division fall one post was reduced and the Manager posted him in NSS High School, Palod as L.G. Hindi Teacher. The petitioner thereafter was transferred from the said school to NSS High School, Vaipur and he joined duty there on 14.11.2007. The appointment of the petitioner as full time L.G. Hindi Teacher was rejected by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P2 order. The petitioner and the Manager approached the revisional authority and thereafter this court considered the matter in W.P.(C) No.30790/2008. Ext.P4 is the judgment in the said writ petition. This court directed the 5th respondent therein to consider the approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 14.11.2007 to 14.7.2008 as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in NSS High School, Vaipur and also his claim for accommodation as UPSA in NSS High School, Kunnanthanam in the vacancy of UPSA that is wpc 21549/2009 2 available from 2.6.2008. Thereafter, an order of appointment was issued as per Ext.P5. It appears that the District Educational Officer passed an order, Ext.P7 stating that retrospective appointment is not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this court has later on issued a clarification order in respect of Ext.P4 judgment, as per Ext.P6, in I.A.No.4894/2009. The said clarification petition was filed by the petitioner. It was disposed of by observing that “having regard to the fact that Annexure 2(a) was issued pursuant to the judgment referred to above, it could not have been forwarded within the time that is specified in the Rules. In view of this, the Manager of the petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay and obviously circumstances justify a direction to the 5th respondent to consider Annexure 2(a) on merits treating the same as having been submitted within the time. There will be a direction to that effect.” 2. The above clarification was issued on 1.6.2009, whereas Ext.P7 is dated 21.5.2009. In the light of the above, the District Educational Officer will have to pass a fresh order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner moved the District Educational Officer, he has expressed his difficulty in the matter, as he has already passed orders. In the light of Ext.P6 clarification, nothing prevents the District Educational Officer from reconsidering the matter. wpc 21549/2009 3 3. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 is quashed. The third respondent District Educational Officer is directed to pass fresh orders in the light of the clarification issued as per Ext.P6, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/