IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 34825 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHA.B., U.P.S.A., D.P.M. UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEZHUMPARA P.O., VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER, D.P.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEZHAMPARA P.O., VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 34825 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in an aided school with effect from 30.6.2008 against a retirement vacancy, which arose on 1.4.2008. She was thereafter appointed on a permanent basis in the very same vacancy on 1.6.2009 and that appointment was approved also. Approval for the petitioner's appointment for the period from 30.6.2008 to 31.5.2009 has been rejected on the ground that as per G.O. (P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008, if the period of appointment does not cover one academic year, the said appointment shall be made only on daily basis. The District Educational Officer and the Director of Public Instruction have rejected the appeals of the petitioner confirming the order of the Assistant Educational Officer. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a. Call for the entire records leading upto the order of 1st respondent declining approval of Ext.P1 on scale of pay and and Ext.P3 and P4 orders passed by the respondents no.2 and 3 and quash the same by issuing w writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents no. 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA in the 5th respondent school from 30.6.2008 to 31.05.2009 and sanction and disburse salary to her without any further delay.” 2. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision of this 2 Court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala [2009 (7) KLT 604], wherein this Court held that the Government order relied upon by the petitioner cannot be pressed into service in the case of appointment in a regular vacancy, without amending the rules. But the learned Government Pleader submits that that decision cannot be applied in this case, since the petitioner has been appointed by two separate appointment orders. Whatever that be, the appointment is in a permanent vacancy, which arose on 30.6.2008 and continued uninterruptedly. That being so, I am satisfied that the above said decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 30.6.2008 continuously without interruption and disburse all monetary benefits arising therefrom for the period from 30.6.2008 to 31.5.2009 also, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall see that the headmaster forwards the bills for salary as soon as the AEO informs that the appointment has been duly approved as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge