IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20383 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SR.MINI ROSE K., U.P.S.A., ST.THOMAS U.P.SCHOOL, KOORACHUNDU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20383 of 2009-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as U.P.S.A. in St. Thomas U.P. School, Kooranchandu, managed by the 4th respondent. She was appointed as per Ext.P1 order dated 26.6.2008, with effect from 26.6.2006 in a regular/permanent vacancy that arose due to the promotion of Smt. Liya Augustine, U.P.S.A. The promotion of Smt. Liya Jose was approved by the second respondent with effect from 18.6.2008, as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.11.2008. When the 4th respondent forwarded the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner to the third respondent, it was rejected by Ext.P3 order, pointing out some reasons. Against Ext.P3 order, the Manager preferred appeal before the second respondent. He has also rectified the defects pointed out in Ext.P3. The second respondent rejected the appeal declining WWapproval on regular basis mainly because of G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008. This is evident from Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the Government Order dated 10.6.2008. 2. This court in a batch of cases, reported in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the wpc 20383/2009 2 statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. Ext.P5 herein was under challenge in those cases. 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 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. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. There will be a direction to the third respondent to pass fresh orders regarding the approval of wpc 20383/2009 3 appointment of the petitioner, in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench in the above decision. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/