IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20421 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEJA JOHN, L.P.S.A., ST.THOMAS L.P.SCHOOL, NELLIPOIL, VIA. KODENCHERRY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CATHOLICATE AND M.D.SCHOOLS, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM-18. R1 & R2 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20421 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as L.P.S.A. in the school managed by the third respondent. She was appointed with effect from 11.7.2008 in a regular vacancy that arose due to the transfer of another teacher, viz. Smt. Rency Thomas. Ext.P1 is the order of appointment. The approval of appointment of the petitioner is restricted to daily wage basis for the period from 11.7.2008 to 31.3.2009 on the basis of G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008 which is produced herein as Ext.P2. This is evident from the endorsement made by the second respondent on Ext.P1. 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. Ext.P2 herein was under challenge in those cases. 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 or more, even if, there is some delay in making the wpc 20421/2009 2 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. Therefore, the endorsement made by the second respondent on Ext.P1 to the extent to which it restricts the approval of appointment of the petitioner to daily wage basis for the period from 11.7.2008 to 31.3.2009, is quashed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to pass fresh orders in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the above decision, 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 wpc 20421/2009 3 writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/