IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14349 of 2009(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BABY.P.B, D/O.POKKAN, ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, SARVA SIKSHA ABHAYAN(SSA) KASARAGOD. BY MR.M.SASINDRAN, ADVOCATE. MR.V.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR,SARVA SIKSHA ABHAYAN (SSA),SSA BHAVAN,NANDAVANAM,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER, SSA, KASARAGOD. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD. 4. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MS. T.B. REMANI, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.14349/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY R2 INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ACCOUNTANT. EXT. P2 : COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY PETITIONER WHILE JOINING THE SERVICE DTD. 1.3.06. EXT. P3 : COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY PETITIONER DTD. 2.4.09. EXT. P4 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DTD. 16.5.09 ISSUED BY R1 TO R2. 1ST AND 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R1(a) : ORDER No.SSA/1/05-06 DTD. 25.2.06. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14349 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of termination passed by the respondents on the ground that the selection and appointment of the petitioner were not properly done. 2. The petitioner is having B.Com Degree and pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification issued by the Sarva Siksha Abhayan, she submitted an application. Pursuant to the interview conducted by the concerned officers, she was initially appointed for a period of 179 days and later the period was extended from time to time and ultimately, it was extended for a period of one year from 02.04.2009. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the copies of agreements executed on 01.03.2006 and 02.04.2009 respectively. The period of appointment will expire on 01.04.2010. By Exhibit P4, the appointment was proposed to be terminated. The main reason stated therein is that the appointment was made without W.P.(C) No.14349/2009 2 following the relevant rules in the matter. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 it is stated that a complaint was raised by one T.Vishnu Namboodiri before the Chief Minister of Kerala against the illegal appointment of Accountant and Night Watchman made by the District Project Officer, SSA, Kasaragod and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted by the State Project Office to verify the grievance. On verification of the files, it was found that the District Project Officer failed to follow the instructions of the State Project Director issued as per letter No.A1/4798/05/SSA dated 15.02.2006 wherein a specified interview board had been constituted. It is also pointed out that as per the circular dated 15.02.2006, all District Project Officers had been entrusted to appoint an Accountant through a proper selection process. But, herein the notification was published by the District Project Officer only in the notice board and he had failed to publish the notification through the leading dailies in the respective district. On the day of interview, the petitioner alone submitted bio-data for the interview and accordingly, appointment order was issued. W.P.(C) No.14349/2009 3 4. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit, there cannot be any doubt that the appointment was made without following the procedures prescribed. Since there was no proper newspaper notification, other eligible qualified candidates were denied their opportunities for making applications and for contesting for the selection to the post. It is also pointed out that the contract appointment was renewed from time to time but it is liable to be terminated. 5. In the light of the above, the action taken by the respondents in issuing Exhibit P4 cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner is not entitled to continue merely because an agreement was executed as per Exhibit P3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has availed maternity leave from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009 and the leave was granted under the relevant rules in the matter. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to continue till 30.09.2009. Therefore, in the light of the above, Exhibit P4 will be implemented only from 01.10.2009. In the meanwhile, the W.P.(C) No.14349/2009 4 concerned authority can proceed with the selection process and take appropriate action in the matter to appoint a properly selected person and the petitioner will also be entitled to submit application pursuant to the notification and participate in the selection process. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp