IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 1655 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18654/2007 Dated 06/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------- MANAGER, ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, VELANCODE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------ 1. JOY PAUL, ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, VELANCODE, KOZHIKODE. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DIST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY. ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR R1 GP SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA No.1655 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 28th October 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, challenging Ext.P4 order of the District Educational Officer dated 11.3.2007. The brief facts of the case are the following : 2. The appellant terminated the first respondent/writ petitioner from service w.e.f. 23.12.1991 on the ground that he resigned from the post of Peon, in which he was working in the appellant's school. Against the termination, the 1st respondent approached the District Educational Officer and the said Officer held that the termination without obtaining the approval of the Educational Officer, even if based on resignation, was bad. On appeal filed by the Manager, the Deputy Director of Education reversed the order of the DEO. The writ petitioner challenged that order by filing OP No.15850/93. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the OP by Ext.P1 judgment, the relevant portion of which, reads as follows : WA No.1655/08 2 “Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed. The relief of the petitioner by the Manager as per Ext.P2 is illegal as he had not obtained the previous approval. Consequently, the petitioner shall be admitted to duty as if he had not resigned or not been relieved of duty.” The above judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench by Ext.P2 judgment. Finally, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service on 01.02.2003. Claiming the service benefits for the period from 23.12.1991 to 31.01.2003, he approached the District Educational Officer and the D.E.O., by Ext.P4 order, declined to approve the aforementioned period as duty. Challenging Ext.P4, the present Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that in view of the declaration made by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P1, which we have already quoted above, the appellant is entitled to get all service benefits for the period mentioned above. The District Educational Officer was directed to take steps to release the salary and other benefits to him. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge issued the following direction also : “The learned Government Pleader submits that the right of the Government may be reserved to recover the amounts so paid to the petitioner in accordance with law from the person responsible. I make it clear that it would be open to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate WA No.1655/08 3 proceedings in that direction, if they are of opinion that legally they are entitled to recover that amount from any person. However, this shall not be taken as a consideration on merits of liability of anybody else to reimburse the said amount.” Feeling aggrieved by the above direction, the Manager has preferred this appeal. Going by the above quoted paragraph of the judgment, we find nothing illegal or irregular about it. The learned Single Judge did not say anything on merits. Only a clarification was issued to the effect that it will be open to the Government to recover the amount paid to the writ petitioner from the person responsible, in accordance with law. They can take steps for the same. Since the learned Single Judge did not say anything on merits, we think, the Writ Appeal filed by the Manager is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WA No.1655/08 4 WA No.1655/08 5