IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18222 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. LATE KELU MASTER, MANAGER, A.U.P. SCHOOL, KARAKKUNNU, P.O. KARAKKUNU, MANJERI (VIA) MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JIJI THOMAS SRIG.B.SHAMJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TVM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TVM. 3. THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANJERI, MALAPPURA, BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18222 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of A.U.P.School, Karakkunnu in Malappuram District. He appointed one Smt. Naseera N. as Full Time Arabic Teacher with effect from 17.6.2008 in the retirement vacancy of Shri N. Usman, Arabic Teacher. Ext.P2 is the said appointment order. The approval of the said appointment is rejected by the third respondent which is evident from Ext.P3 order dated 23.9.2008. This is done mainly relying on Ext.P1 Govt. Order dated 10.6.2008. Ext.P6 is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604). 2. This court in Unni Narayanan's case (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. Ext.P1 herein, was under challenge in those cases. 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-terminus with the term of the vacancy. If, in fact, the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, even wpc 18222/2009 2 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 order issued by the third respondent rejecting approval of appointment made by the petitioner, is quashed. There will be a direction to the third respondent to pass fresh orders as regards grant of approval of the appointment, 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 18222/2009 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/