IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14336 of 2009(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. S. VINOD, ALUVILA VEEDU, KURAKKAD.P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695 104. 2. A. MOHAMMED SABITH, SAHRA MANZIL, ULLOORKONAM, KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 582. BY ADV. MR.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SC/ST DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM - 695 017. 4. PRINCIPAL, DR. AMBEDKAR VIDYA NIKETHAN CBSE MODEL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, NJARANEELI, TRIVANDRUM - 695 572. 5. DR. S.P. SHANIMOL, PRINCIPAL, -DO- GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14336 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were appointed on contract basis as Teachers in Dr.Ambedkar Vidya Nikethan CBSE Model Residential School. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the appointment order in respect of the petitioners issued by the 2nd respondent-Director. The period of appointment is expired on 31.03.2009. 2. Mainly it is contended that Executive Committee of the School resolved as per Exhibit P2 to confer on them the benefit of extension of appointment. The apparent complaint raised by the petitioners is that in spite of the decision of the Executive Committee, by Exhibit P3 the Director has issued a fresh notification. The petitioners contend that the notification issued by the Director as per Exhibit P3 is bad in law, in the light of the decision taken by the Executive Committee. 3. As directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a detailed statement. It is stated therein that the pending posting W.P.(C) No.14336/2009 2 of regular teachers, the Department has been resorting to appointment of qualified teachers on contract basis for one year at the beginning of the academic year till 31.03 of every year. The selection of Teachers is being done by an interview board consisting of the Director, Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pattom, Principal and Manager of CBSE School etc. The teachers engaged on contract basis during the academic year 2008-09 have been terminated on 31.03.2009. The applications were invited for selection during 2009-2010 giving wide publicity through print and visual medias and walk in interview held on 28.05.2009 in the Chamber of Director namely, 2nd respondent. 73 candidates appeared for the said interview for 9 posts in 8 subjects. It is averred that among them, 3 candidates are the teachers who worked in the school along with the petitioners during the previous academic year on temporary basis. Two of them got selection also for the present year. It is pointed out that all the 9 posts have been filled up on temporary basis during the academic year 2009-2010. 4. It is further contended that the petitioners were appointed only on contract basis and that will not confer on them W.P.(C) No.14336/2009 3 any claim for regularization or for continuance of the same terms for a further period as the period ended at the end of the academic year. It is also pointed out that the 2nd respondent alone is the competent authority to conduct selection and decision of the Executive Committee cannot bind the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd respondent ought to have approved the decision of the Executive Committee. In the light of the fact that 2nd respondent alone is competent to take a decision in the matter and as the method of appointment resorted to by the 2nd respondent is also by inviting notification etc., I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp