IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33234 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MYCI C.J., ASST. TEACHER, ASSISTANT SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, EAST VAZHAPPALLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ST.JOSEPH'S PROVINCIALATE, VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-23. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.33234/2009-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The matter concerns rejection of approval of appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher with effect from 03/06/2008 in a permanent vacancy in the Assissi School for the Deaf, managed by the fourth respondent. She had worked earlier in a leave without allowance vacancy covered by Ext.P1. The permanent appointment was made in a resignation vacancy of Sister Minimol Sebastian. But, the approval was rejected for two reasons. Firstly, reliance was placed on G.O.(P).No.104/08/G.Edn., dated 10/06/2008. The second reason shown is regarding the objection of the maternity leave availed by the petitioner for the period from 24/09/2007 to 05/02/2008. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C).No.36631/2008 dated 06/04/2009 (Ext.P6), wherein, the validity of the G.O.(P).No.104/08/G.Edn., dated 10/06/2008 was considered therein and it was inter alia held that without amending the statutory rules, the said Government Order cannot be pressed into service. The said Judgment W.P.(C). No.33234/2009 -:2:- was followed in W.P.(C).No.22780/2008, going by Ext.P6(a) Judgment. In the light of the above, the petitioner seeks reconsideration of the proposal for approval. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as regards the question of the maternity leave which was objected earlier, the petitioner is not pressing the said matter now. Therefore, what remains is the consideration of the question of approval of the appointment which was rejected by relying upon the provisions of G.O.(P).No.104/08/G.Edn., dated 10/06/2008. 4. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 604] (Ext.P6), the said objection cannot be sustained. Therefore, Ext.P4 as far as it declines the approval of appointment of the petitioner on the said ground is quashed. There will be a direction to the District Educational Officer, the third respondent herein, to take a fresh decision in the light of the dictum laid down in Ext.P6 Judgment Unni Narayanan's case [2009 (2) KLT 604]. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the State has filed a Special Leave Petition against the said Judgment which is pending. 6. Therefore, it is made clear that the approval W.P.(C). No.33234/2009 -:3:- granted will be subject to the orders to be passed in the Special Leave Petition pending against the judgment of the Division Bench in Unni Narayanan's case [2009 (2) KLT 604] and on the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to the effect that benefits received will be reimbursed if an adverse order is passed. Orders as above shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms