IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 18335 of 2006(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJAVALLY K., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI), MAMBRAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAMBRAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. 3. MANAGER, MAMBRAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAMBRAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH FOR R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHRE FOR R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON 15/11/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dlk WP(C).No. 18335 of 2006(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.46/2006/G.EDN. DATED 01.02.2006. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO. K.D. DIS.B1- 2054/06 (1) DATED 05.04.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE dlk S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 18335 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a High School Assistant. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed to a sanctioned post with effect from 28.6.2001 and the petitioner has all the qualifications prescribed for the post. But the petitioner's appointment was approved only with effect from 1.2.2006. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from 28.6.2001 to 1.2.2006. The petitioner relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jolly v. State of Kerala, 2003(2) KLT 192 to the effect that for the period during which a teacher worked, salary should be paid. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent seeking to controvert the claims of the petitioner. 3. It is settled that an aided school teacher is entitled to salary from the Government only if that appointment is approved by the educational authorities. Admittedly, in this case, although the petitioner was appointed with effect from 28.6.2001, such appointment was approved only with effect from 1.2.2006. The petitioner can claim salary only for the approved service. The petitioner's reliance on the decision in Jolly's case (supra) is misplaced insofar as that decision has been rendered in respect of specialist teachers on a construction of Rule 6B of Chapter XXIII of the KER. The direction in paragraph 41 thereof relied on by the petitioner is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and does not lay down any law that if the manager W.P(C) No. 18335 of 2006 -: 2 :- appoints a person in a sanctioned post even if it is not approved, the teacher is entitled to salary from the Government. Incidentally, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 Government Order but no grounds are raised in respect thereof. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the approval order, whereby the petitioner's appointment was approved only with effect from 1.2.2006. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/