IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19412 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMNA.B, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HEMAMBIKA SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, HEMAMBIKA SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 TO R4 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 19412 of 2009-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was initially appointed as UPSA in Hemambika Sanskrit High School, Kallekulangara as per Ext.P1 order. The District Educational Officer approved the appointment only on daily wages from 14.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 and on scale of pay basis from 2.6.2008 onwards as per the endorsement in the said order. This order is passed obviously by relying upon G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 26.5.2009 which is evident from Ext.P1 issued by the District Educational Officer. 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 statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. Ext.P2 herein is the said judgment. The validity of the above Government Order 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 wpc 19412/2009 2 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, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass fresh orders regarding the approval of appointment of the petitioner on daily wages, in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench in the above decision, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of the Division wpc 19412/2009 3 Bench referred to above, before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/