IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6931 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJASREE.S., H.S.A. (HINDI), M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL, POZHANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL, POZHANAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 6931 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as an H.S.A. (Hindi) in an aided High School on 2.6.2004 and the same was approved by the D.E.O. also. The petitioner was so continuing in the school. In 2009, an objection was raised by the audit party that the school being one newly opened during 1983-84, a protected teacher ought to have been appointed before appointing the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the D.P.I. cancelled the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner challenged the same by filing Ext.P6 petition before the Government. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 and to stay the operation of Ext.P3 in the meanwhile. 2. The learned Government Pleader would oppose the prayer of stay. The Government Pleader would contend that salary cannot be continued to be paid. 3. I have considered the contentions of the parties. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner's appointment in 2004 was approved. The petitioner has no legal obligation in the matter of appointment of a protected teacher. If at all there is any, that is on the manager. For 5 long years, respondents 1 and 2 were sleeping in w.p.c.6931/10 2 respect of the appointment of the petitioner without appointing a protected teacher. It is not as if the manager and the teacher have played a fraud on the educational authorities. The educational authorities are perfectly aware of the requirements which have to be satisfied by the manager in the matter of appointment of teachers. They are also aware of the availability of protected teachers awaiting appointment. If there was any protected teacher awaiting appointment, it was the duty of the educational authority to direct the manager to appoint one. The fact that the educational authority did not do so and approved the appointment of the petitioner would ordinarily lead to the inference that there was no protected teacher available for such appointment. If it was actually on account of any mistake on the part of the educational authority, they should not punish the petitioner for the same. Rather they should find out a way to solve the problem without disturbing the petitioner. In any event, for the fault of the respondents, that too, after a long period of five years, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer at least till a final decision is taken on Ext.P6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, w.p.c.6931/10 3 there would be a stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3. The petitioner shall also be paid salary in the meanwhile for the work done by the petitioner. The petitioner and the manager of the school shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on Ext.P6. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge