IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30727 of 2007(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUMESH.K.V., S/O.VASUDEVAN, KOLLAKKATTU, ELAMAKADU P.O. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, K.A.M. LP SCHOOL, MOOLAMKUNNU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KATTAPPANA. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, PEERMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. K.D.RAVI, MANAGER, K.A.M.L.P. SCHOOL, MULAMKUNNU, PERUVADANAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. GIJIMOL.S., D/O.SUBRAMANIAN, MANAPARAMBIL, ARAKKAL P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS FOR R4 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30727 OF 2007-G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4.6.2007 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.7.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF A.E.O. PEERMEDU DATED 28.3.2005 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF D.E.O. DATED 29.11.2005 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)46/2006/EDN. DATED 1.2.2006 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 8.5.2006 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.7.2006 OF ADDL. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF GOVERNMENT SECRETARY DATED 9.5.2007. / TRUE COPY / S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 30727 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Lower Primary School Assistant in an aided school of which the 4th respondent is the Manager, from 4.6.07. As per Ext.P1 appointment order , he was earlier appointed in the same post on 01.07.04 by Ext.P2 appointment order. That appointment was not approved by the 3rd respondent on the ground that being a newly opened school without appointing a protected teacher, no appointments made can be approved and the 4th respondent have not appointed a protected teacher. The appellate and revisional authorities also confirmed the same, as per Exts.P3, P4 and P7 orders. In the meanwhile, by GO(P) No.46/06 dated 01.02.06, which is Ext.P5 herein, the Government directed that the appointments of the teachers whose names are appended to the Government Order be approved on certain conditions. Petitioner's contention is that in that annexure, instead of petitioner's name, the name of the 5th respondent who had resigned from service had been included, although in her resignation vacancy only the petitioner was WPC : 30727/07 -:2:- appointed. Petitioner therefore submits that petitioner is entitled to be included in Ext.P5 in the place of the 5th respondent and her appointment approved with effect from 1.7.04. It appears that the Manager had earlier filed a petition before the Government for the same relief and this Court had directed consideration of the same. The Government had considered the same and passed Ext.P10 order rejecting the contention of the Manager. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 3rd respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner from 01.02.06 with all service benefits by setting aside Exts.P3, P4, P7 and P10. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 3rd respondent to pay salary to the petitioner for his service from 01.07.04 o 31.01.06. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction to 3rd respondent to release immediately the amount allowed as per reliefs(i) and (ii).” 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the inclusion of the 5th respondent in the annexure to Ext.P5 order is a mistake and the petitioner's name ought to have been included in the place of the 5th respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st WPC : 30727/07 -:3:- respondent controverting the contention of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. A reading of Ext.P10 would make it abundantly clear that the contention of the petitioner is not correct. Inclusion of the 5th respondent in Ext.P5 is not at all a mistake. The 5th respondent had approved service with effect from 25.11.98 to 26.03.02. She was again appointed with effect from 15.07.03 to 23.01.04. That appointment was not approved on the ground that a protected teacher was not appointed in accordance with the Government Orders on the subject. In respect of that appointment only the 5th respondent's name was included in Ext.P5 which is not a mistake at all. The petitioner could have aspired for approval only after the Manager appointed a protected teacher as per the Government Order. 4. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that subsequently a protected teacher was appointed on 23.01.07 and therefore the petitioner's appointment should have been approved with effect from her original date of appointment namely, 01.07.04. I do not think that such a contention can be accepted. The petitioner's appointment could have been approved WPC : 30727/07 -:4:- only after the Manager complies with the Government Order directing appointment of protected teachers which was done only on 23.07.07. Thereafter fresh appointment order appointing the petitioner with effect from 04.06.07 has been issued which is Ext.P1. That appointment has been approved. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief in the matter. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb