IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 26252 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKUMAR.N., S/O.NARAYANANKUTTY, PEON, V.V.VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AYATHIL PO. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER, V.V.VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AYATHUL PO., KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.RAMESH FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26252 of 2008(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WP(C) NO.16803/2006 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/06/2008 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02/04/2004 RESPONDENTS' EXTS.: N I L ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.26252/2008-A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of the proposal to approve his promotion as L.D.Clerk in the school managed by the third respondent. The petitioner was working as Peon in the said school. 2. A vacancy arose in the post of L.D.Clerk in the school when Shri C.R.Rose Chandran who was working as L.D.Clerk expired. By Ext.P1, the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary School informed the Manager that the post of Clerk may be advertised for fresh appointment if there is no claimant for the post. It was also informed that the Peon working in the school can also apply for the post. The petitioner was appointed in the said vacancy as per Ext.P2 while W.P.(C).No.16803/2006 filed by the petitioner was pending before this Court. In the light of the appointment granted to him, the above writ petition was closed. Thereafter, on 31/08/2006, the Manager sent a proposal to the second respondent for approval of the appointment. Ext.P4 is the said proposal. That was returned by Ext.P5 stating that there is no special rule in the aided sector for providing promotion from the post of Peon to that of Lower Division Clerk. W.P.(C). No.26252/2008 -:2:- Petitioner seeks at least provisional promotion, till the Special Rules are brought into force. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the Vocational Higher Secondary Education Special Rules for the Aided sector has not been promulgated till date. Draft Special Rules applicable to Aided sector alone is under the consideration of the Government. Till the finalisation of Aided Vocational Higher Secondary Education Special Rules, Government has extended the Special Rules applicable to Government sector to Aided sector for the day today business of the Aided sector. It is pointed out that in V.H.S.E Special Rules for Government sector, which is applicable to Aided sector for the time being, there is no provision to promote a Peon to the post of Lower Division Clerk, even though the Peon is qualified to hold the post of L.D.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Government letter No.10958/SC1/08/Gl.Edn., dated 21/01/2009 addressed to the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education. The contents of the same are extracted below:- “Peon in Aided Schools is one of the feeder category for promotion to the post of Lower Division W.P.(C). No.26252/2008 -:3:- Clerk in schools as per Explanation (II) under Note 2 of Rule I Chapter XXIV KERs. Hence appointment of a Peon as Lower Division Clerk is allowable as per KER if he has required qualification.” It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the above, the petitioner's appointment is liable to be approved. 5. Therefore, the matter will be reconsidered by the second respondent in the light of the said direction issued by Government. Ext.P5 is quashed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and the Manager and after considering the contents of the Government letter quoted above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms