IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30091 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PREMACHANDRAN.M.K., CRAFT TEACHER, AZHIYUR EAST U.P.SCHOOL, ALIYUR P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHOMBALA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, AZHIYUR EAST U.P.SCHOOL, ALIYUR P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 30091 OF 2008 (G) ==================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he was appointed as a Craft teacher effective from 20/1/92. However, his appointment was approved by Ext.P2 order dated 31/3/2001 w.e.f 01-02 onwards. That order has become final and was never challenged. 2. It would appear that subsequently in 2006, petitioner has filed a representation to one of the Ministers of the State Government referring to Exts. P3 to P8 and contending that he is entitled to have his appointment also approved with effect from 20/1/92. That claim was examined by the Government and rejected by Ext.P8(a) order dated 11/1/2008. According to the petitioner, he sought a review of Ext.P8(a) by filing Ext.P9. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed mainly praying that Exts. P2 and P8(a) be quashed to the extend approval is declined for the period from 20/1/1992. 3. In my view, this writ petition is only to be dismissed. First of all the approval granted by Ext.P2 order dated 31/3/2001 has never been challenged. That order having become final, the case of the petitioner will have to be regulated by the terms of Ext.P2. That apart, even if there is WPC 30091/08 :2 : substance in the petitioner's case that other teachers have been given benefit by Exts. P3 to P8, so long as the petitioner has no case that the view taken by the authorities in Ext.P2 is inconsistent with the rules governing the same, in my view the departure made in Exts. P3 to P8 cannot create a precedent for the petitioner to claim parity with the beneficiaries of Exts.P3 to P8. Therefore, so long as Ext.P2 has attained finality, petitioner cannot claim anything beyond that, particularly at this distance of time. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp