IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WA.No. 2930 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23275/2008 Dated 06/11/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WP ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR WEST. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY G.P. SMT.T.B.RAMANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WP ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.S.HELEN, W/O.KARTHIKEYAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST.IGNATIUS U.P.SCHOOL, MANALUR, THRISSUR - 680 617. 2. THE HEADMISTRESS, ST.IGNATIUS U.P.SCHOOL, MANALUR, THRISSUR WEST - 680 617. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R1 SRI.K.E.HAMZA FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2930 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge interfering with the proposal to recover vacation salary drawn by first respondent in the year of appointment. Even though we find merit in the contention of the Government Pleader about the wrong appointment given by the Manager during the beginning of vacation contrary to Rule, we feel there is no scope for interfering with the judgment because the amount involved is salary paid to the first respondent for two months i.e. April and May 1985. Since the appointment itself was approved and the audit objection raised 13 years thereafter was also dropped, we do not find any justification to proceed for recovery in 2008, after 23 years of payment of salary during vacation based on the approval of appointment. In fact, in our view, action was called for against the educational authority who approved the appointment of the 2 teacher made in violation of the Rules. We dismiss the Writ Appeal with this observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms