IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 2165 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.6097/2001 Dated 28/06/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. JOSHY JOSE, S/O. JOSE, ASSITANT TEACHER, KARIPPAL S.V.U. SCHOOL, KARIPPAL P.O., CHAPPARAPADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, KARIPPAL S.V.U.P. SCHOOL, KARIPPAL P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2165 OF 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the appellants. They approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to approve the appointments of the first appellant by the second appellant in short term leave vacancies during the academic year 1997-98. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The second appellant is the Manager of an Upper Primary School. The first appellant is an Upper Primary School Assistant working under the second appellant. During the year 1997-98, there were 22 sanctioned posts of Upper Primary School Assistants. During the previous year 25 Upper Primary School Assistants were working in the school. As per the staff fixation order for the year 1997-98, three teachers became surplus. The first appellant was the juniormost among them. But, the Government issued Ext.P10 order (produced in O.P. No.6097 of 2001) permitting revision of staff fixation order by reducing the teacher - student W.A. NO.2165/2005 2 ratio from 1:45 to 1:40 so as to retain the surplus teachers during that academic year. So, on the strength of Ext.P10 Government Order, two additional divisions were created and two of the three surplus hands were accommodated. While so, a leave vacancy arose in the school and the first appellant was appointed in that vacancy from 15.7.1997 to 12.9.1997. He was again appointed in another leave vacancy from 29.9.1997 to 18.12.1997. Still later, he was appointed in a leave vacancy from 2.1.1998 to 30.3.1998. Exts.P1 to P3, produced in O.P. No.6097 of 2001, are the relevant appointment orders concerning those appointments. But, the Assistant Educational Officer did not approve those appointments and all the superior authorities including the Government upheld the decision of the Assistant Educational Officer. The order of the Government rejecting the claim of the first appellant is Ext.P9 dated 17.11.2000. The Original Petition was filed challenging those orders including Ext.P9 and seeking a direction to the respondents to approve the appointments of the first appellant made by the second appellant as per Exts.P1 to P3 orders. The learned Single Judge who heard the Original Petition dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Ext.P10 Government Order to support the W.A. NO.2165/2005 3 claim of the first appellant. The learned Government Pleader relied on G.O.(P)423/97/G.Edn. dated 27.10.1997, which is available at page 887 of the book, Kerala Education Rules published by K.E. Hamsa, 2007 edition. The said Government Order says that if any vacancy arises, the surplus teachers retained on the basis of Ext.P10 Government Order will be adjusted first against the vacant posts. 4. Going by the normal rules of staff fixation contained in Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, three teachers were surplus. On the strength of Ext.P10 order issued by the Government, two of them were accommodated. So, even if a vacancy arises, one of such accommodated teachers should be adjusted against that vacancy. A retrenched hand cannot be reappointed. So, we find nothing wrong with the action of the respondents in declining to approve Exts.P1 to P3 appointment orders. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO.2165/2005 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO. 2165/2005 JUDGMENT 2nd June, 2009 W.A. NO.2165/2005 5