IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 9559 of 2005(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.K.KUTTYKRISHNAN NAIR, MANAGER, A.S.V.U.P.SCHOOL, EDAKKARA, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SMT.JYOTHI MANOTH, MANOTH HOUSE, P.O.KURIKKILAD, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.T.K.MOHANAN R2 BY ADVS.MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN, SMT.S.LAKSHMY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.9559/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30.9.94 BY THE THEN MANAGER OF THE A.S.V.U.P. SCHOOL, EDAKKARA. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. NO.D. 5951/94 DTD. 22.12.94. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS NO.7226/94 DTD. 28.1.95 BY R1. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1/259/04 DTD. 16.2.05 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.9559/2005-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, the Manager of a school has filed this writ petition challenging the order approving the appointment of the second respondent as a teacher in the school. The petitioner's wife was the Manager when the second respondent was appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that the order appointing the second respondent, as per Ext.P1, was not approved going by Ext.P2 stating that there was no sanctioned post. The petitioner was approved as the Manager of the school as per Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer finding that there is an open vacancy to which the second respondent was entitled to be appointed. In terms of the said approval of appointment, she had drawn salary. Subsequently, she left the service after resigning from the post in question. The only issue is whether the school was entitled for a post, to enable the then Manager to appoint the second respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that Ext.R2(b) is the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer in the matter pursuant to the direction issued by the Government to reconsider the staff W.P.(C). No.9559/2005 -:2:- fixation orders. Accordingly, it was found that the school is eligible for 14 divisions and sufficient number of posts also. It is submitted that in terms of the same, the appointment of the second respondent was approved. 3. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent that after restoring 14 divisions during the year 1994-95, there was a sanctioned post to accommodate the second respondent in the school from 01/01/1995. It is also averred that the appointment of the second respondent, which was already rejected, was reconsidered, after all the posts that existed in the school during the year 1994-95 were restored. 4. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no creation of post and consequent vacancy to justify the appointment of the second respondent cannot be justified. In that view of the matter, the consequential orders of approval and the drawing of salary by the second respondent cannot be held illegal. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms