IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16204 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REENA P.B., D/O.BALAN, PUTHOOR HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. H.S.A.(MALAYALAM), R.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PERINJANAM. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16204 of 2009-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as H.S.A. (Malayalam) in R.M.V.H.S. School, Perinjanam. It is an aided school under the 4th respondent. It is submitted that she was appointed in a regular vacancy consequent on the retirement of another teacher with effect from 9.6.2008. The appointment is approved only on daily wages from 9.6.2008 to 31.3.2009. Obviously, the approval is restricted on daily wages in the light of Ext.P1 G.O.(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 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.P1 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 16204/2009 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. In the light of the above, Ext.P2 to the extent to which approval is given only on daily wages basis is quashed. The third respondent will pass fresh orders in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench 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 this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/