IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15524 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.J.JINCY, H.S.A.(ENGLISH), ST.THOMAS H.S., MAYANOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR-680 005. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ADV.SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.15524/2009-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a High School Assistant (English) in St.Thomas High School, Mayanoor. She was appointed on 17/06/2008, in a regular vacancy. It appears that the approval of the appointment was not granted in the light of the Government Order (P).No.104/08/G.Edn., dated 10/06/2008. Even though an appeal was filed by the Manager, the fifth respondent, that was also rejected by Ext.P1. The said Government Order is produced as Ext.P2 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. This court in a batch of cases, reported in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. It was held that “if the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, appointment can be made to fill up the same. The term of appointment need not be co-terminous with the term of the vacancy. If, in fact, the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, even if, there is some delay in making the appointment, such appointment will have to be approved.” Ultimately, in para 12, a direction was issued as follows: W.P.(C). No.15524/2009 -:2:- “12. 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.” 3. In the light of the legal position, Ext.P1 is quashed. There will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the application for grant of approval of appointment in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the Division Bench judgment before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms