IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27634 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SMT.SINDU B.S., ASSISTANT TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SMT.K.L.SHIJILA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.MUHAMOOD T.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27634 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T It is the second time that the petitioners are before this Court seeking approval of their appointments. The complaint raised by the petitioners is that in spite of the judgment Exhibit P3, the Assistant Educational Officer has granted approval without complying with the directions issued in the said judgment. Shortly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: 2. The 1st petitioner was appointed on 05.06.2006 and the 2nd petitioner on 18.06.2007. The issue regarding their approval was finally decided by the Additional Director of Education (Academic) by Exhibit P1. Therein the approval of appointment of the 1st petitioner from 01.06.2007 was rejected and the action of the District Educational Officer in directing the approval of Sri.K.M.Saju from 01.06.2007 was found proper. There was a further direction to appoint Smt.K.L.Shijila in the promotion W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 2 vacancy. The said order was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)No.10003/2009. During the pendency of the writ petition, the disputes between the parties were settled and Exhibit P2 is the copy of the agreement. 3. Going by the terms contained in Exhibit P2, the 1st petitioner will have to be adjusted against the vacancy which arose on 05.06.2007 consequent on the promotion of Sri.K.Balakrishnan, U.P.S.A as Headmaster. The 2nd petitioner will have to be adjusted against the vacancy which arose consequent on the promotion of Sri.V.C.Sreedharan, U.P.S.A as Headmaster with effect from 02.06.2008. 4. This Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the agreement and after quashing Exhibit P12 order produced in that writ petition (Exhibit P1 produced here). This Court issued the following directions in paragraph 3 of the writ petition: “Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the agreement, Ext.P14. Ext.P12 order is therefore quashed. The Manager will forward fresh proposal in terms of the agreement, to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent will take appropriate action to approve the appointments. W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 3 Final orders shall be passed by the 4th respondent, within one month from the date of receipt of proposal from the Manager. The other legal issues raised in the writ petition are left open”. 5. Thereafter, the Manager issued fresh appointment orders as Exhibits P4(a) and P4(b). But, while granting approval, the Assistant Educational Officer has granted approval to the petitioners on daily wages from 17.08.2009 to 31.03.2010 and probationary from the date of reopening of the school in the next academic year 2010-2011. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. It is pointed out that the copy of Exhibit P2 and copy of the relinquishment of the claim of the 2nd petitioner were not produced and therefore, the Assistant Educational Officer passed orders of approval in terms of the appointment orders. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the original of Exhibit P2 was produced before the Assistant Educational Officer for perusal by the 1st petitioner herself and if it is required, the same will be produced again. W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 4 7. As far as the the question of producing copy of the relinquishment is concerned, it is pointed out that in the light of the specific clauses contained in Exhibit P2, same is not required. I find force in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The terms of compromise have been clearly recorded in Exhibit P2 and the same have been approved by this Court in Exhibit P3. Therefore, action will have to be taken in terms of the compromise itself and as directed in Exhibit P3 judgment in W.P.(C) No.10003/2009. The question of producing any fresh relinquishment does not arise. It is clear that the approval granted on daily wages is also wrong. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: The endorsement in Exhibits P4(a) and P4(b) whereby the approval is granted only on daily wages from 17.08.2009 to 31.03.2010 will stand set aside. The Assistant Educational Officer will pass fresh orders in the matter in terms of the conditions stipulated in Exhibit P2 and the petitioners or the Manager will produce the original of Exhibit P2 before the Assistant Educational Officer and on receipt of the W.P.(C) No.27634/2009 5 same, appropriate orders will be passed approving the appointment of the petitioners as proposed in the orders of appointment on regular basis within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp