IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 618 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15422/2010 Dated 02/02/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVACIS. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SALITHA BOSE, H.S.A., S.N.TRUST H.S.S. THOTTADA, KANNUR-670 007. 2. THE MANAGER, S.N.TRUST, KOLLAM-1. R1 BY ADV. SRI. R. KRISHNARAJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 618 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-1 : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.19/09/G.EDN. DATED 09.02.2009. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 618 OF 2011 and C.M. Appl. No. 362 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The delay of 23 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned, after hearing both sides. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is with regard to the rights and liberties of a person who is stated as a 'protected teacher' (Rule 51A claimant - Chapter XIVA-KER). The writ petitioner, who was working in one of the schools belonging to the 2nd respondent Management, which is a corporate institutional agency, happened to be sent out because of division fall, pursuant to which she was accommodated in another school belonging to the same management, which was a new school. When proceedings were filed before the concerned authorities for approval of transfer and appointment, the same was rejected as per Ext.P6 order which was subjected to challenge by filing the writ petition No.15422 of 2010. 3. The case of the State/Department was that, W.A. No. 618 of 2011 -:2:- accommodation of the writ petitioner in the newly commenced school was not in conformity with the statutory prescription. in so far as, by virtue of the relevant Government Orders issued, all the appointments in the 2nd respondent's new school had to be made by accommodating protected teachers as contemplated under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. It was also contended that, while applying the norms, the junior most teacher who was working in the corporate agency had to be sent out, under which circumstance the said hand would have to wait in the queue maintained by the district authorities and better qualified/eligible candidates ought to have been appointed in the 2nd respondent's school. 4. After hearing the rival submissions, the writ petition was allowed, holding that the service of the writ petitioner was liable to be regularised, which in turn is under challenge in this appeal. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Government considered the matter and issued G.O.(Rt) No. 1511/2011/G.Edn. dated 23.04.2011, a copy of which is produced along with the additional counter affidavit dated W.A. No. 618 of 2011 -:3:- 25.06.2011 filed by 2nd respondent as Exhibit P2(d), whereby the Government took a decision to approve such appointments. It is pointed out by both the sides that, the writ petitioner also will stand benefited in the above circumstance. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the matter could be disposed of by directing the Government to consider the case afresh in the light of Ext.R2(d) as mentioned herein before. 7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner submits that the said respondent has been working for more than 4½ years without any salary, for the fact that the appointment was never approved. It is also stated that the writ petitioner happened to suffer much, for no fault on her side and as such she is eligible to get salary. We find considerable force in the above submission. In the said circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of, directing the 3rd appellant to reconsider the matter with regard to the approval to be given to the writ petitioner in the light of Ext.R2(d) dated 23.04.2011 and appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at W.A. No. 618 of 2011 -:4:- any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim for salary by the writ petitioner shall also be considered in the light of the observations made as above and the due amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a further period of one month thereafter. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb