IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21302 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SINDHU. P., JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER, A.U.P. SCHOOL, THESSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JYOTHI T.S., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, A.U.P. SCHOOL, THESSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. MANAGER, A.U.P. SCHOOL, THESSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHALAKUDY. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21302 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are teachers appointed by the 1st respondent manager in his School. The 1st petitioner was appointed in three different spells. They are, from 5.6.2000 to 18.8.2000, from 14.1.2002 to 22.3.2002 and from 2.6.2003 onwards in a regular vacancy. The appointments for the first 2 spells were duly approved. However at the time of filing of the writ petition the 1st petitioner’s appointment from 2.6.03 onwards in a regular vacancy was not approved. The 2nd petitioner was appointed in 4 spells. They are, from 11.9.2002 to 14.1.2003, 15.1.2003 to 13.3.2003, 14.3.2003 to 28.3.2003 and from 18.7.2005 onwards in a regular vacancy. None of the spells of appointments of the 2nd petitioners were approved. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the non-approval of those appointments. The counsel for the petitioner now submits that as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned pursuant to orders of this Court produced as Exts.P8 to P10, the appointments of the 1st petitioner was W.P.(C) No.21302/05 2 approved and therefore for the present, the 1st petitioner does not have any subsisting grievance. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, subsequent to filing of the writ petition, by Ext.P16 order the Asst. Educational Officer rejected the approval on the ground that as per Government orders in force at the relevant time, the vacancies should have been filled up only after obtaining prior sanction of the Government. In a revision filed by the 2nd petitioner, the Director of Public Instruction confirmed the order on the ground that the vacancies should have been filled up only after appointing protected teachers. The 2nd petitioner has therefore amended the writ petition challenging Exts.P16 and P17 orders also. Now the 2nd petitioner contends that in the very same School one Smt. Sheela P.M. was appointed as LPSA in 2006 whose appointment was approved by the Department on 5.2.2007. So also another teacher by name Smt. Faby M.S. was also appointed as LPSA in 2006, which appointment was also approved on 15.2.2007. According to the 2nd petitioner, in view of approval of those appointments reasons given in Exts. P16 and P17 cannot hold good. In the above circumstances, the 2nd petitioner seeks quashing of Exts.P16 and P17 and W.P.(C) No.21302/05 3 reconsideration of the matter in the light of the approval of the appointment of the above said teachers, who are also allegedly similarly placed like the 2nd petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Government pleader also. I am satisfied that the authorities should look into the matter in the light of the above contention raised by the 2nd petitioner. For this purpose I quash Exts.P16 and P17. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter taking into account the contention of the petitioner that appointments of similarly placed teachers namely Smt. Sheela P.M. and Smt. Faby M.s., who were appointed in 2006 were approved on 5.2.2007 and 15.2.2007 respectively. Such consideration shall be within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent - Manager of the School. The writ petition is disposed of as accordingly. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C) No.21302/05 4