IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16233 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JUSTIN P.G., PELLISSERY HOUSE, P.O. AMMADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, H.S.A. SANSKRIT (PART TIME) ST. ANTONY'S HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHENPEEDIKA. 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, THRISSUR. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.6.2009, , THE COURT ON 12/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16233 of 2009-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is working as a Part-time H.S.A., Sanskrit in St. Antony's High School, Puthenpeedika. He was appointed on 18.6.2008 in the vacancy which arose consequent on the promotion of another teacher with effect from 16.6.2008. Ext.P2 is the order of appointment. By Ext.P3, approval was refused by the third respondent. An appeal was filed before the 5th respondent and by Ext.P4, the appeal was also rejected. The orders rejecting approval on scale of pay basis, have been granted in the light of Ext.P1 Govt. Order dated 10.6.2008. 2. The validity of the above Govt. Order was under challenge in before this court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604). In the above decision, a Division Bench of this court 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-terminus with the term of the vacancy. If, in fact, the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year wpc 16233/2009 2 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: “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 above, Exts.P3 and P4 to the extent to which approval is refused relying on Ext.P1, are quashed. The second respondent will pass fresh orders in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench in the above decision, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. He will also examine the contentions regarding grounds 2 and 3 in Ext.P3. The petitioner will produce a copy of wpc 16233/2009 3 this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/