IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 7944 of 2007(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAJAN GEORGE, S/O.V.B.GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS, F.T.MENIAL, C.M.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT TIRUVALLA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, C.M.S. SCHOOLS, KOTTAYAM. 8. THE PRINCIPAL, C.M.S.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.7944/2007 9. SRI.SHAJI.P.KURUVILA, FULL TIME MENIAL, C.M.S. HIGH SCHOOL, PALLAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. SRI.JOHN DANIAL, FULL TIME MENIAL, C.M.S. HIGH SCHOOL, KATTANAM, (VIA) KAYAMKULAM. 11. SRI.DEEPU N.VARKEY, FULL TIME MENIAL, C.M.S. HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA. 12. SRI. ISAAC MARKOSE, FULL TIME MENIAL, B.H.C.M.S., HIGH SCHOOL, MAVELIKKARA. 13. SMT.ELIZABETH BABY, FULL TIME MENIAL, B.H.C.M.S., HIGH SCHOOL, MAVELIKKARA. 14. SMT.SINDU, FULL TIME MENIAL, C.M.S.HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHUPPALLY, KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE FOR R7 SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND FOR R9,10,11, 12, 13,14 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI FOR R1 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7944/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 3.3.03. P2:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 31.7.03. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/2809/03/K.DIS OF THE DIST. EDL. OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DT. 24.6.05. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/6325/03 OF THE DIST. EDL. OFFICER, THIRUVALLA DT. 9.3.04. P5:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE MANAGER DT. 9.3.06. P6:- COPY OF THE DO. DO. DT. 20.8.04. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. NO.25232/06 DT. 26.9.06. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET3/69124/06 /DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 28.11.06. P9:- COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DT. 12.2.07. P10:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 5.10.05. P11:- COPY OF THE DO. DO. DT. 5.10.05. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7944 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November 2008 J U D G M E N T By Ex.P1 order dated 03/03/2003, the petitioner was appointed as a Part time Menial by the 7th respondent Manager. That appointment was made in respect of a school coming under the jurisdiction of the 5th respondent. Subsequently by Ext.P2 order, again issued by the 7th respondent, the petitioner was promoted as a Full time Menial in a school coming under the jurisdiction of the 6th respondent. 2. In relation to Exts.P1 and P2, approval was sought, and was rejected by Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the respondents 5 & 6 respectively. Against these orders, the Manager filed Exts.P5 and P6 revisions before the 2nd respondent. Complaining of delay in the disposal of the revisions, the petitioner filed writ petition W.P.(C) No. 7944/2007 -2- No.25232/2006. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P7 judgment directing expeditious disposal of the revisions. 3. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent heard parties and passed Ext.P8 order. A perusal of Ext.P8 shows that the reason for the delay in considering the approval application was the dearth of documents in relation to the approval of senior appointees. The Manager sought time for production of the documents and that was granted, and on that basis, the respondents 5 & 6 were directed to consider the approval applications made by the Manager in respect of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner submits that subsequently he filed Ext.P9 representation to the Manager requesting to comply with the requirement of Ext.P8, so that he could obtain approval of his appointment and get salary on that basis. Still, the orders are not passed as directed in Ext.P8 and it is therefore that the petitioner filed this writ petition. Referring to Exts.P10 & P11, the petitioner contends that the W.P.(C) No. 7944/2007 -3- respondents 9 & 11 appointed as Full time Menial with effect from 05/10/2005 have been granted approval based on the declaration submitted by the Manager. On this basis, it is argued that, now that the appointment of juniors have been approved, there is no justification for keeping approval in relation to his appointment pending. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Manager submits that all documents relevant for deciding the approval application have been furnished to respondents 5 & 6 and that if any further document is necessary for this purpose, the 7th respondent is willing to produce the same. 5. As already noticed, in view of Ext.P8, it is for respondents 5 & 6 to consider the applications seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner made as per Exts.P1 & P2 orders. The only requirement is that the Manger should produce certain documents as mentioned in Ext.P8. Now, that the Manager submits that he has produced the documents, it is for respondents 5 & 6 to consider the approval applications. W.P.(C) No. 7944/2007 -4- 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 5 & 6 to consider the applications made by the 7th respondent seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Part time Menial and as Full time menial, evidenced by Exts.P1 & P2 orders. It is directed that in the event, the documents produced by the 7th respondent are insufficient, it will be open to respondents 5 & 6 to call upon the 7th respondent to specify the documents and require its production. 7. In any case, orders as directed in Ext.P8 shall be passed by the respondents 5 & 6 in the manner as above, with notice to the petitioner and 7th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce copy of the judgment before the respondents 5 & 6 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg