IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 10123 of 2009(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- BINU.C.S, K.V.K.V.M.UPS, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 6. THE MANAGER, K.V.K.V.M.UPS, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.RAMESH R6 BY ADV.MR.ANEESH JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10123/2009 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO DTD. 17/01/08. P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY MANAGER DTD. 24/01/08. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DTD. 26/05/08. P4: COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVT. DTD. 21/07/08. P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.11/03/09. P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER DTD. 6/03/09. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DTD. 28/05/07. P8: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD. 12/03/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.10123/2009-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Sanskrit Teacher in the sixth respondent's school with effect from 04/06/2007 in a permanent vacancy which arose when Smt.Suseela, Sanskrit Teacher, retired from service. 2. The approval of appointment of the petitioner was declined on the ground that the vacancy should have been filled by appointing a protected teacher. This was challenged by the Manager in an appeal, which was rejected as per Ext.P1. In a further appeal filed by the Manager, after finding that there is no protected teacher for deployment as reported by Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, the Director of Public Instruction directed the Assistant Educational Officer, to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 02/06/2007 on daily wage basis. Challenging the above direction, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Government, which is produced as Ext.P4. The Government, it appears, has taken the view that since there is no protected hand in the school, the appointment cannot be approved on regular basis. W.P.(C). No.10123/2009 -:2:- 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent Manager also. 4. In the affidavit filed by the Manager, it is stated that the Manager had appointed one Shri Raman Pillai in the school, who returned to the parent school. There was no protected teacher in the District for appointment as part time Sanskrit Teacher, and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed. It is pointed out that the Manager had submitted an affidavit before the Government stating that the Manager is willing to appoint a protected teacher in the next arising vacancy. 5. Presently, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court in Moosakutty Puthuvalappan vs. District Educational Officer, Wandoor and others [ 2009 (3) KHC 446]. Therein, this Court after examining the factual details held that in view of the fact that a protected teacher is not available in the Educational Sub- district, the approval should have been ordered. In the light of the above and in the light of the clear finding by the Director of Public Instruction that there was no protected teacher available, the reason for rejection of approval cannot be sustained. Therefore, Ext.P8 is quashed. The order passed by the W.P.(C). No.10123/2009 -:3:- Director of Public Instruction to approve the appointment only on daily wage basis is also set aside. The petitioner is entitled for approval of appointment on a regular basis. Appropriate orders will be passed by the authority concerned in the light of the above findings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms