IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 2262 of 2009() --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/06/2009 IN WP(C) NO.34049/06) APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WRIT PETITION: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MS.T.B.REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRAN NAIR, LAB ASSISTANT, B.N.V.V & HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, B.N.V.V. & HIGHER, SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R2 MR.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A. No.2262 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned Government Pleader for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The 1st respondent's claim for appointment to the post of Lab Assistant in the 25% promotion quota reserved for Class-IV employees in the 2nd respondent School was denied to him on account of the 2nd respondent appointing four persons directly and mis-representing the educational authorities that there is no person eligible for appointment in the quota reserved for Class-IV employees. The clear finding of the learned Single Judge is as follows:- “The manager had illegally appointed another person in the post to which the petitioner had to be appointed.” Once the approval is rejected in respect of one of the appointees, automatically the Manager should have appointed the petitioner with effect from the date of Ext.P4 (02/06/2003). After hearing all W.A.No.2262/2009 -2- parties and after going through the records, we do not find any ground for interfering with the finding of the learned Single Judge. 3. The next question to be considered is whether for the manager's foul play, which led to denial of employment to the 1st respondent, the Government should be made liable to pay arrears of salary and other benefits. Our answer is a clear No. Therefore, we order that payment of all financial benefits, which the 1st respondent would have got had he been appointed on 28/03/2003 would be paid by the Manager personally. However, since the Manager had made the appointment on 21/02/2005, his liability to pay financial loss to the 1st respondent will be only with effect from 28/03/2003 to 21/02/2005. The Government will pay arrears of salary and other benefits to the 1st respondent with effect from 21/02/2005 onwards after the approval of his appointment as Lab Assistant with effect from that date. The 2nd petitioner is directed to work out the financial benefits that the 1st respondent has lost on account of his delayed posting on 21/02/2005 and recover the entire amount and pay to the 1st respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent W.A.No.2262/2009 -3- should be granted whatever is the benefits he is entitled for the post he held, i.e. Peon post, prior to his promotion until 21/02/2005. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg