IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20688 of 2009(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MANAGER, MARAYAMANGALAM NORTH ALP SCHOOL, MARAYAMANGALAM NORTH POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY MS.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE. MR.R.SREEHARI, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, KERALA, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM. 4. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORANUR. BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20688 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is the Manager of an aided school. Exhibit P3 is the order appointing one Jaseera V.P in a permanent vacancy which arose on 01.07.2008. Relying upon G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.06.2008 (Exhibit P1), the appointment is approved as L.P.S.A from 01.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 on daily wage basis only. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 10.06.2008 and is relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 604) which is produced as Exhibit P2. The Division Bench has directed the Educational Authorities to reconsider the orders of approval in the light of the dictum laid down therein. It was held in paragraph 7 of the said judgment that the offending conditions in Exhibit P2 Government Order cannot stand with the statutory rules. Therefore, for enforcing W.P.(C) No.20688/2009 2 them, the relevant rules require amendment. As long as the rules are not amended, Exhibit P2 cannot be pressed into service by the Government. 3. Finally in paragraph 12, the following directions were issued: “In the case of the writ petitioners in these cases, orders, if any passed, approving their appointments on daily wage basis, relying on Ext.P2 Government Order are quashed. All appointments, whether pending approval or already rejected, shall be considered/reconsidered by the Educational Officers concerned and fresh orders shall be passed in the light of the declaration of law made by us in W.P.(C) No.25176 of 2008. The salary found due to be paid to the incumbents concerned shall be released immediately. The action in this regard shall be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment”. 4. The petitioner has already moved the District Educational Officer by filing Exhibit P4. In the meanwhile, the Government has communicated a letter dated 19.06.2009 to the effect that the Government has decided to file Special Leave Petition against the judgment, and further action shall be deferred pending further orders. W.P.(C) No.20688/2009 3 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader. True that the Government may be contemplating the filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment Exhibit P2, that cannot have the effect of nullifying the directions issued in the judgment. The decision to file Special Leave Petition cannot prevent the authorities from passing orders as directed by this Court. Exhibit P3 to the extent to which approval is granted on daily wage basis is quashed. In that view of the matter, untrammelled by the directions issued in Exhibit P5, the Assistant Educational Officer is directed to pass a fresh order in the matter within a period of two months in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp