IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 OP.No. 32627 of 2002(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. A.N.MUJEEB RAHMAN FULL TIME ARABIC TEACHER,PULLAMPARA PANCHAYAT L.P.S., NEDUMANGAD,TRIVANDRUM 2. K.L.MANJU, LPSA -DO- BY ADV. MR.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,ATTINGAL TRIVANDRUM 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM 4. SECRETARY, PULLAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND MANAGER, PANCHAYAT LPS,PULLAMPARA, PANAYAM, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.32627/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1.441/99 DTD. 31.7.2001 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT AND APPROVED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5.7.02 IN CMP. 30174/02 IN OP. 12866/02. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.7.02 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.7.02 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5:- AN EXTRACTS FROM G.O(P) NO.56/02/FIN. DTD. 16.1.02 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1 9346/02 L.DIS DT.D 7.1.03 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1-9345/02 L.DIS DTD. 7.1.03 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.318/02/FIN. DTD. 22.5.02 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 32627 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are teachers employed in Pullampara Panchayat L.P.S., Pullampara, managed by the Pullampara Grama Panchayat. Originally they were appointed in short term vacancies. At the relevant time as per Rule 1 (3) of Chapter XIV A of KER, appointment of teachers in schools managed by the Panchayats were to be made from among qualified hands through Employment Exchange. Later on, to facilitate selection through the Kerala Public Service Commission that Rule was amended from 03.04.2000, wherein candidates selected by the P.S.C. were to be appointed as teachers in schools managed by the Local Self Government Institutions. However necessary amendments were not made in the P.S.C. Regulations. Therefore in the decision reported in Sasikala v. Vrindha, 2001 (2) KLT 278 this court permitted the respective Panchayats to make O.P. No. 32627 of 2002 -2- permanent appointments of teachers on the basis of unamended Rule 1 (3) of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. This was further reiterated by a Division Bench of this court in C.M.P. No.1945/2002 in writ appeal No.697/2002. Based on the same, this court in O.P. No.12866/2002 passed an interim order dated 05.07.2002 in C.M.P. No. 30174/2002, by which this court directed that the Panchayat will be free to engage the petitioners, if they so choose. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent appointed the 1st petitioner by order dated 10.07.2002 as a full-time Arabic Teacher and appointed the 2nd petitioner on the same date as a L.P.S.A. by Exts. P3 & P4 orders respectively. The said appointments have not been approved. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: i) to declare that limiting of approval to the appointment of the petitioners upto 31.03.2003 and restricting only the basic pay of the post are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners without any specific period and in conformity O.P. No. 32627 of 2002 -3- with the appointment order issued by the competent appointing authority, and to grant full pay and allowances to the petitioners from the date of their appointment. iii) to direct the 3rd respondent to sanction and disburse vacation salary of the petitioners during April/May 2002 expeditiously. 2. I find that O.P.No.12866/2002 in which petitioners were the petitioners was finally heard by a Division Bench of this court and by judgment dated 23.05.2003 denied relief to the very same petitioners in this O.P. by the following judgment. “1. The petitioners pray for a direction to the third respondent to appoint them as teachers in the Pullampara Panchayat L.P. School on a regular basis. Their claim is on the basis that they are entitled to preferential claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules in view of their past approved service in the said school. In C.M.P. No.30174 of 2002 this court passed an interim order on 5th July, 2002 directing that the Panchayat will be free to engage the petitioners if they so chose. Thereupon the petitioners were appointed as teachers in the school from 10.7.2002 onwards. The appointment was subject to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules thereunder and such other Rules or orders issued from time to time by the Government or other competent authority. Their appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, Attingal from 10.7.2002 to 31.3.2002 subject to the final orders in O.P. No.12866 of 2002 and paragraph 17 of G.O.(P) No.56/02 dated 16.1.2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Panchayat has filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer, Attingal against the action of the Assistant Educational Officer in limiting the approval upto 31.3.2002. The said appeal was rejected by the District Educational Officer, Attingal on 7.1.2003. 2. In view of the decision of the Full Bench in W.A. O.P. No. 32627 of 2002 -4- No.32 of 2001 and connected cases the prayer in the original petition is liable to be rejected. In view of G.O.(MS) No.218/95/LAD dated 6.10.1995 the petitioners could not have been given any regular appointment and the Assistant Educational Officer was right in limiting the approval of their appointment to 31.3.2002. The appointment given to the petitioners on the basis of the interim order passed by this court in C.M.P. No.30174 of 2002 cannot confer any right on the petitioners for regular appointment. It was specifically stated in the appointment order that the appointment was subject to the final decision in the original petition. 3. Since the claim of the petitioners cannot be upheld in view of the decision of the Full Bench in W.A.No.32 of 2001 and connected cases this original petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be entitled to get salary for the period they have actually worked on the basis of the appointment given to them pursuant to the interim order passed by this court.” 3. In view of that judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this original petition. 4. Accordingly following that judgment, this original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/