IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 779 of 2006() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.9230/1999 Dated 20/01/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ THE MANAGER, M.T.U.P.SCHOOL, PERUMPETTY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. L.T.ALEYAMMA, KALKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PERUMPETTY POST, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VENNIKULAM (VIA), THIRUVALLA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, THIRUVALLA POST. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. RAICHALAMMA VARGHESE, KAKKAMALA HOUSE, PERUMPETTY POST, MALLAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE FOR R1 ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS FOR R6 SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R2 TO 5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.779 OF 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This appeal is filed by the Manager of M.T.U.P.School, Perumpetty, an aided school. The writ petition was filed by a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher of that school. The claim was that she should have been appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher with effect from 7.6.1993 on which date a retirement vacancy arose in that school. She also prayed that such appointment should be approved and she is entitled to arrears of salary and other benefits of H.S.A. for the period from 7.6.1993, till she was appointed. She was appointed in the above school for different spells from 13.12.1973 to 28.2.1974, from 1.11.1978 to 5.1.1979, from 27.1.1982 to 31.3.1982 and from 25.1.1990 to 31.3.1990. All these appointments were approved. Therefore, being a Section 51-A claimant, she is entitled to get appointment in the retirement vacancy that occurred on 7.6.1993. Despite judgment of this court, the Manager failed to appoint her. By Ext.P6 order dated 15.10.1993 it was held by the DEO that the petitioner was fully qualified for appointment as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in 1993-94 and appointment of fresh hand in that place was illegal. That was approved by higher authorities. This court W.A.779/2006 2 also in O.P.No.16925/1993 held that the petitioner ought to have been appointed in the vacancy that arose in 1993 and appointment of fresh hand will be illegal. Despite that, it was not done. The learned Judge held as follows: “Accordingly, I direct the 1st respondent Manager to issue an appointment order appointing the petitioner in the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher with effect from 7.6.1993. i.e., the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The same shall be forwarded to the 2nd respondent AEO within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon the 2nd respondent AEO shall approve the same within another period of two weeks. Respondents 2 to 4 shall take appropriate steps to recover the salary due to the petitioner for the period from 7.6.1993 to 2.6.1996 from the 1st respondent Manager with interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent per annum and pay the same to the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I was also inclined to direct respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate steps as contemplated in the KER against the 1st respondent Manager for violation of the orders passed by the educational authorities. However, in view of the fact that there was in fact a stay order at least for some time, although much after the orders of the educational authorities staying the implementation of the orders I am refraining from doing so. The 1st respondent shall also pay costs of the petitioner in these proceedings which I quantify at Rs.10,000/=. This shall be paid by the 1st respondent to the petitioner within one month from today.” W.A.779/2006 3 We fully agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge. The appellant was persistent in not obeying the order of the educational authorities. Despite the directions from this court, the appellant failed to implement the order. Because of the illegality, the writ petitioner cannot suffer and, therefore, her salary was ordered to be paid for the period and Government was also directed to recover the amount as Government is not responsible for this contingency. We see no ground to interfere in the same. We also note that the amount on the basis of the interim order was paid. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interest awarded need not be paid, if it is not already paid. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks