IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16767 of 2010(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- CISI MATHEW PULICKAMPURATH, W/O. MARY DASAN, U.P.S.A, ST. GEORGE T.T.I, VAZHAKULAM, MOOVATTUPUZHA, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, RESIDING AT VENGOORAN, NADUKANI, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, BISHOP HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.16767/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.B1/1/7792/05/K.DIS. DTD. 1.12.2005. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.K.DIS/B4/5786/05 DTD. 5.4.2006 ISSUED BY THE E3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.K.DIS./B4/2754/06 DTD. 18.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.K.DIS/1208/06/C DTD. 5.4.2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P5:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.K.DIS/3452/07/C DTD. 9.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.C/3567/07/D.DIS DTD. 28.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.C/237/08/D.DIS DTD. 13.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND TIS APPROVAL ORDER NO.C/7499/09/K.DIS. DTD. 6.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 169/2004/G.EDN. DTD. 15.6.2004. P10:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.1/2005/G.EDN. DTD. 1.1.2005 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.H2/91954/2005 DTD. 31.8.2005 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. P12:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.35341/2007 DTD. 4.6.23009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16767 Of 2010-U ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P1 to P8 orders which according to the petitioner are contrary to Rule 7(3) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. It is pointed out that in the light of the judgments of this Court in Abdurahiman v. Government of Kerala(2009 (2) KLT 105) and Exhibit P12, the matter will have to be reconsidered. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the 6th respondent- Manager during different spells and the appointments were approved also as evident from Exhibits P1 to P8 orders by respondents 2 to 5. It is pointed out that the approvals have been ordered on daily wage basis and not on regular basis. It is the case of the petitioner that going by Exhibit P11 circular, it was specified that appointments made after 15.6.2004 will alone be on daily wages. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in Abdurahiman v. Government of Kerala(2009 (2) KLT 105) held in paragraph W.P.(C)No.16767/10 -2- No.14 thus: “ Up to 25.6.2005, it was possible to appoint persons to vacancies having a duration not less than two months. Such appointees, on being relieved, were treated as 51A claimants also. Even in the absence of any such rule, it is a well recognised principle in Industrial Jurisprudence that a person retrenched from service should be preferred, when vacancy arises in future. Earlier, it was thought that the said benefit flowing from Chap. VA of the Industrial Disputes Act in favour of the workmen was available only if retrenchment is made after working for 240 days. So, in industries, persons appointed for one or two months, if retrenched, were entitled to get re- appointments when vacancies arise in future. In the case of Educational institutions, the minimum incumbency period was fixed as two months. That is because a valid appointment can be made only if the vacancy extends beyond that period. Now, it is provided that appointments can be made, if only the duration of the vacancy is one academic year and only such incumbents are to be given preference in future appointments. But, the said amendment can in no way affect the rights accrued to persons, on the strength of their appointment to short duration vacancies exceeding two months, made earlier to the amendment. The right of them to get re- appointment was always recognised by R.51A. But, after 25.6.2005, one can be appointed if only the vacancy has a duration of one academic year. Therefore, naturally, W.P.(C)No.16767/10 -3- such persons alone can get the right to re-appointment also. So, the interpretation sought to be advanced by the respondents that the writ petitioner has no right for re- appointment under R.51A, in view of the introduction of the first proviso to the said rule, cannot be accepted.” 4. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same will squarely apply to the facts of this case and therefore it can be directed to be considered by the Educational Officers. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Exhibit P1 appointment alone is prior to the crucial date and with regard to subsequent appointments even though the duration is lesser than the period prescribed, it can be approved only on daily wages. I am not finally pronouncing anything on that aspect, since the matter will have to be reconsidered. 6. In the light of the above, Exhibits P1 to P8 to the extent to which the approval is granted on daily wage basis are quashed. The matter will be reconsidered by respondents 2 to 5 and appropriate orders will be passed after hearing the petitioner and the Manager in the light of the dictum laid down in Abdurahiman's case(supra) and other provisions of the Kerala W.P.(C)No.16767/10 -4- Education Rules, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge