IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18937 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SMITHA THOMAS, U.P.S.A, NIRMALA U.P.SCHOOL, CHAMAL, THAMARASSERY,KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. BINNU ROSE JAMES, L.P.S.A, NAZARETH L.P.SCHOOL, MUTHOTTICKAL, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. NIMMI KURIYAN, U.P.S.A, NAZARETH U.P.SCHOOL, KATTIPPARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DIST. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.18937/2009-J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first and third petitioners were appointed as U.P.S.As and the second petitioner as L.P.S.A by the third respondent Manager in Nirmala U.P. School, Chamal, Nazareth L.P.School, Muthottickal and Nazareth U.P.School, Kattippara respectively. The appointments have been approved only on daily wages basis, in the light of G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008, which is evident from Exts.P1, P2 and P3. The above Government Order is produced as Ext.P4. The petitioners challenge Exts.P1 to P4 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. 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-terminous 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 appointment, such appointment will have to be approved.” Ultimately, in para 12, a direction was issued as follows: W.P.(C). No.18937/2009 -:2:- “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.P1 to P3 to the extent to which approval is given only on daily wages basis are quashed. The second 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 petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms