IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29372 of 2010(V) PETITIONER( --------------- P.C.NARAYANAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 45 YEARS, MUSIC TEACHER, KUTTAMBOOR HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PUNNASSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (RESIDING AT KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, NANMINDA, VIA BALUSSERY). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, \ GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-695014. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY-673573, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER, KUTTAMBOOR HIGH SCHOOL, KOYILANDY, P.O.PUNNASSERI 673585, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 29372 OF 2010 V ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Music Teacher in Kuttamboor High School with effect from 9.10.1991 against a newly created additional post for the year 1991-92. Approval of the appointment of the petitioner was granted provisionally in compliance with Ext.P2 interim order in O.P.No.8822 of 1992. In the staff fixation order for 2002-03, the post of Music Teacher was abolished on the ground that there was no sufficient period to sanction the post. It is contended that the petitioner was really entitled to protection as per G.O.(P) No.175/99/G.Edn. dated 26.7.1999. On the basis of the provisional approval, salary was paid to the petitioner and his probation was declared to have been completed successfully. It is stated that regular increments were also sanctioned to the petitioner up to 2001. Later, Government passed Ext.P6 order dated 10.7.2003, holding that approval of the appointment of the petitioner was inadmissible and therefore, the approval was rejected. Ext.P6 order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14663 of 2006, W.P.(C) NO.29372 OF 2010 V :: 2 :: which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 23.1.2007. It was held by this Court that the petitioner should be paid salary in terms of the judgment in O.P.No.8822 of 1992 read with the interim order passed therein, till 10.7.2003. The order dated 10.7.2003 was quashed and a direction was issued to the first respondent to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to approval of his appointment made on 9.10.1991. It is submitted that in terms of Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner was paid salary for the period during which he worked. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 15.8.2010 to the first respondent praying to grant protection to the petitioner. In Ext.P9 there is reference to the judgment in W.P. (C) No.14663 of 2006 dated 23.1.2007 and also an order passed by the Government subsequent to that date. But there is no mention in the representation about the date of the Government Order. It is also not stated in the Writ Petition as to the nature of the Government Order passed pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.14663 of 2006. However, it is stated in Ext.P9 that the petitioner was entitled to protection in the light of the Government Orders then in force and, therefore, he is entitled to the relief prayed for in the representation. Ext.P9 is pending disposal. W.P.(C) NO.29372 OF 2010 V :: 3 :: 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to continue in service in view of Rule 6(4) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant protection and continuity in service to the Petitioner for he has got approved and paid service since 9.10.1991 till 14.7.2002. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P9 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit. (iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, it would be sufficient if the first respondent is directed to W.P.(C) NO.29372 OF 2010 V :: 4 :: consider and dispose of Ext.P9 representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and leaving open all the contentions put forward by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 representation dated 15.8.2010 as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the fifth respondent Manager. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. Petitioner shall also send a copy of the Writ Petition and copy of the judgment to the fifth respondent Manager by registered post and the petitioner shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/