IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34610 of 2007(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VALSA M.A., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), B.G.HIGH SCHOOL, MUKKATTUKARA, P.O.NETTISSERY, THRISSUR-680 657. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, ADV. SRI.T.SREEKANTAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, NAVAJYOTHI EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, OLARIKKARA P.O., PULLAZHI, THRISSUR. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. RAVIKRISHNAN, R5 BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34610/2007-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER SHOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE D.E.O DTD. 01/01/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 05/06/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE D.E.O. DTD. 16/09/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE MANAGER DTD. 29/09/2006. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE D.D.E. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DTD. 01/02/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER DTD. 20/06/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (P) 220/05/G. EDN. DTD. 19/07/2005. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (P). NO. 165/2008/G. EDN. DTD. 19/09/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34610/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she is a graduate in Physics with B. Ed in English. She was appointed as a UPSA with effect from 12.6.1989 in the school belonging to the 5th respondent. Subsequently, she was appointed as HSA (Physical Science) for the period from 1.1.2003 to 7.3.2003. By Ext.P1, the appointment made for the aforesaid spell was also approved. Still later by Ext.P2 order recognizing her claim under rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A KER she was appointed in a permanent vacancy with effect from 5.6.2006. Petitioner submits that approval sought for by the Manager was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P3 order. Appeal and revisions were rejected by the DDE,DPI and the Government as per Exts.P5,P6 and P8. WP(c).No.34610/07 2 2. The reasons stated by respondents 1 to 4 for rejecting approval of the appointment is that in terms of Ext.P9 Government order dated 19.7.2005, for appointment as HSA core subject, the B. Ed should be in the concerned subject. Though the correctness or validity of this Government Order has not been questioned by the petitioner, what is sought to be is taken advantage of Ext.P1 Government Order dated 19.9.2008. Clause (i) of Ext.P10 reads as under. "Those teachers who were appointed in regular/short term vacancies in aided schools as HSA(Subjects) {excluding HSA(English) before 19.7.2005 with B. Ed in a different subject, who became claimants under Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER for the post of H.S.A (subjects){excluding HSA(English) by virtue of their appointment before 10.7.2005." Relying on the aforesaid provision of Ext.P10, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she having B.Sc Physics and B. Ed is eligible for the benefit of clause (i) extracted above. WP(c).No.34610/07 3 3. A reading of Ext.P3, P5 and P6 shows that none of the authorities had occasion to refer to Ext.P10 for the reason that the said clarification was issued much later to the aforesaid orders. Now that Ext.P10 has been issued, necessarily, the applicability of the same, in so far as the case of the petitioner, is a matter for the 4th respondent to consider. Accordingly, in order to enable the 4th respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of Ext.P10, I quash Exts.P3, P5, P6 and P8. Fourth respondent shall reconsider the request made by the 5th respondent for approval of the petitioner as HSA(Physical Science). The matter shall be reconsidered as above, with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.34610/07 4