IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 16106 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.B.VISHNU, LABORATORY ASSISTANT, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SREEKRISHNAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM. 6. THE MANAGER, SREEKRISHNAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,SREEKRISHNAPURAM. 7. THE PRINCIPAL, SREEKRISHNAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY, SCHOOL, SREEKRISHNAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R6 & 7 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R6 & 7 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R6 & 7 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R6 & 7 SMT.T.B.REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16106/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/06/2001 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.299/2004/G.EDN. DATED 24/09/2004. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/11/2004 OF the DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. P4 : COPY OF the ORDER DATED 17/06/2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF the ORDER DATED 19/07/2005 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25/01/2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16106 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 order deploying the petitioner to work as a Full Time Menial. The petitioner also seeks a direction to disburse the salary for the period from 23/07/2005 for his service as Lab Assistant and to grant approval for the appointment. 2. From the facts of the case, it is seen that the petitioner was appointed in the school of which the 6th respondent is the Manager as a Full Time Menial with effect from 01/08/1995. By Ext.P1 order dated 06/06/2001, he was promoted and appointed as Lab Assistant in the Higher Secondary section. Subsequently it is seen that by Ext.P3, the Deputy Director deployed the petitioner as Full time Menial giving him the benefit of protection. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from the school on 22/11/2004, and W.P.(C) No.16106/2008 -2- despite this, the Director issued Ext.P4 approving the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant. Later by Ext.P5, the petitioner was recalled to the parent school. It is stated that, thereafter he was reappointed by the Manager as a Lab Assistant with effect from 23/07/2005. While so, the Director issued Ext.P6, taking the view that the approval granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P4 was erroneous. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. Evidently, the petitioner joined as a Full time Menial. Though he was granted promotion and was appointed as Lab Assistant in the Higher Secondary section, following the deployment by Ext.P3 as a Full Time Menial, he was relieved from that post, and he was working as a Full Time Menial since them. When he was recalled, he could continue only as Full Time Menial. But, on the other hand, the Manager reappointed the petitioner as Lab Assistant. Since the petitioner was already relieved as early as on 22/11/2004, approval granted as Lab Assistant by Ext.P4 on W.P.(C) No.16106/2008 -3- 17/06/2005 is clearly erroneous and if that be so, the Director’s view in Ext.P6, that the approval was wrongly granted, cannot be faulted. 4. However, Ext.P6 does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled for the status of Full Time Menial and this is a matter for the 5th respondent to consider. Therefore, I direct the 5th respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for approval as a Full Time Menial, based on the appointment that was granted by Ext.P1. All necessary consequential orders will also be passed on that basis. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent, who shall take further steps taking into account Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent. A decision in this matter shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg