IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15054 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANAGER, BHARATH A.L.P.SCHOOL, NELLAYA, IRIMBALASSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.15054/2009-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is the Manager of an aided L.P. School. He is aggrieved by the rejection of approval of appointment of two teachers, namely, Smt.O.Jumana who was appointed as L.P.S.A on 19/06/2008 and Sri.K.Abdul Nazar as full time Arabic teacher on 26/06/2008. The Assistant Educational Officer granted approval only on daily wages basis relying upon G.O.(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10/06/2008, as per Exts.P1 and P2 respectively, against which the Manager filed appeal before the third respondent District Educational Officer, which stands rejected by Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. 2. The said Government Order was under challenge in various writ petitions before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan v.State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 604] has considered the validity of the Government Order and it was 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 W.P.(C). No.15054/2009 -:2:- need not be co-terminus 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: “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, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. Exts.P1 to P4 are therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to pass fresh orders in the light of the findings contained in the judgment in Unni Narayanan's case [2009 (2) KLT 604]. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from W.P.(C). No.15054/2009 -:3:- the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Depending upon the final orders thus passed, the salary of the teachers shall also be disbursed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the Division Bench judgment before the authority concerned for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms