IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21526 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHLEY GEORGE PART-TIME L.G,SANSKRIT TEACHER, MTHS KUNDARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICAER, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DIST,. 3. MANAGER MARTHOMA SCHOOL, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, KUNDARA EAST, KOLLAM DIST. R1 & R2 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 21526 of 2009-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is working as part time L.G. Sanskrit Teacher in M.T.H.S., Kundara. She was appointed with effect from 9.6.2008 in a regular/permanent vacancy that arose due to the retirement of one Mr. K. Rajendra Prasad. The approval of the said appointment is rejected by the third respondent as per Ext.P2 order, relying upon G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008. The said Govt. Order is produced as Ext.P3 herein. Exts.P2 and P3 are 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. 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: wpc 21526/2009 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.P2 order is quashed. The second respondent will pass fresh orders regarding approval of appointment of the petitioner, 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 second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/