IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33724 of 2005(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.MADHU, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, KADAMERI U.P.SCHOOL, THODANNUR SUB DISTRICT, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY MR.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODANNUR. 5. THE MANAGER, KADAMERI U.P.SCHOOL, THODANNUR SUB DISTRICT, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.33724/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.113/2000/G.EDN. DTD. 6.4.2000. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/C/2783/2001 DT. 4.7.2001 ISSUED BY THE AEO, THODANNUR. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H4-29303/2001/DPI. DTD. 5.11.01 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. C- 5534/01. DTD. 3.12.01 ISSUED BY THE A.E.O. THODANNUR. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H4-29303/2000/DPI. DT. 4.1.02 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H4/29303/2000/DPI. DT. 6.1.05 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.570/2005 DTD. 10.3.05 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C 570/2005 DT. 1.8.05 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P10 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.570 /2005 DTD. 21.11.05 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8.2.08 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.3.08 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 13.7.09 IN WPC. 2315/06 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33724 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the proceedings by which approval of appointment of the petitioner granted as per Exhibit P4 was subsequently modified to be effective from a later date resulting in consequent recovery of salary, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in Kadameri U.P.School on 01.06.1992 by the Manager. The vacancy arose due to the retirement of one O.P.Vasu on 31.05.1992. The issue regarding appointment of the petitioner and 53 other similarly placed Physical Education Teachers was pending before the Government and ultimately the Government passed Exhibit P1 order directing to regularise the appointments of 54 posts of Physical Education Teachers, and the Director of W.P.(C) No.33724/2005 2 Public Instruction was directed to verify individual cases and ascertain their eligibility before approving these appointments. Initially, the approval was granted only with effect from 17.07.2000 as per Exhibit P2 order. The petitioner challenged that part of the order requesting to approve his appointment from 01.06.1992 and the 2nd respondent allowed his claim as per Exhibit P3 order. Exhibit P4 is the consequential order passed by the 4th respondent approving his appointment from 01.06.1992. Exhibit P5 is the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction directing the Educational Officers to approve the appointment of 54 Physical Education Teachers with effect from the date of their appointment. Later, by Exhibit P6, the Director of Public Instruction cancelled Exhibit P5. The petitioner filed a representation as per Exhibit P7 against the same. By Exhibit P8, the order approving his appointment from 01.06.1992 was modified and approval was granted with effect from 05.06.2000 with a further direction to recover the salary from 01.06.1992 to 04.06.2000. Even though Exhibit P9 representation was filed, again the 4th respondent directed the Headmaster to recover the W.P.(C) No.33724/2005 3 salary as per Exhibit P10. Exhibit P12 is a further communication in this regard. 3. Mainly it is contended that in the light of the order passed by the Government whereby regularization was ordered in respect of 54 appointees including the petitioner, approval of appointment from the date 01.06.1992 is perfectly in order. It is therefore, contended that the cancellation of the same by the Director of Public Instruction is not justified. 4. The issue that is raised by the petitioner is covered in his favour as per Exhibit P15 judgment rendered by this Court in the connected cases. Similar orders were under challenge in the said writ petitions. After considering the contentions in detail, it was held thus in paragraph 6: “The objection now taken that the appointment can be approved only prospectively, is not supported by any Government Order including Ext.P1. The wording in Ext.P1 shows that the Government has regularised the appointments of 54 Physical Education Teachers. That itself shows that the regularisation will take effect from the date of appointment itself. There is no direction in Ext.P1 that the appointments are to be approved only W.P.(C) No.33724/2005 4 prospectively. As the Government has regularised the appointments as such, the Director of Public Instruction could not have issued a later order. Ext.P7, without having received any other direction issued by the Government in the matter. Therefore, the objection that is raised in Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. Apart from that, in respect of petitioners 1 and 2, by separate orders Exts.P10 and P11 the Government itself had approved the appointment from the dates shown therein. The same will prevail over Ext.P7, obviously. Once the appointment is approved, it will have to relate back to the date of appointment itself, unless otherwise shown in the order. There is no dispute that the petitioners have performed the duties as teachers also from the date of appointment. As regards petitioners 3 and 4, no other reasons have been pointed out also”. It was ordered that the approval of appointments granted to the petitioners therein will be treated as valid. The petitioner is similarly placed being one among the 54 persons. Therefore, the reasoning adopted in Exhibit P15 judgment squarely applies to the petitioner. The impugned orders Exhibits P6, P8, P10 and P12 are therefore quashed. It is declared that the approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1992 as Physical Education Teacher as per W.P.(C) No.33724/2005 5 Exhibit P4 is perfectly legal and valid. The petitioner will be entitled for all the consequential benefits also. This writ petition is allowed as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp