IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 3244 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS T.T. FULL TIME MENIAL, ST.THOMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THOMAPURAM, P.O.CHITTARIKKAL, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMNET OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KASARGOD. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KASARGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI FOR R1 TO R6. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3244/2008-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/09/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DD. 17/05/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 17/05/2006 TOGETHER WITH APPROVAL DT. 19/08/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/03/2006. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 17/04/2006. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/09/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 13/10/2006. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/02/2007. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 28/02/2007. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/07/2007. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/01/2007. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/09/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3244/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1, he was appointed as a Full Time Menial in St. George's High School, Chempanthotty. While continuing there, by Ext.P2 order he was transferred and posted to St. Thomas Higher Secondary School, Thomapuram under the same corporate agency. On the same date, Ext.P3 appointment order also was issued appointing the petitioner in the St. Thomas High School, Thomapuram and the respondents have a contention that it is a case of fresh appointment. 2. Be that as it may, the grievance is regarding the non-approval of the petitioner's appointment for the period from 6.9.2005 to 17.5.2006. Although, the Manager took up the matter before the appellate and revisional authorities WP(c).No.3244/08 2 including the Government, the request for approval was turned down by Exts.P4,P6,P8 and P10. 3. The reason for not approving the appointment was that the Manager ought to have appointed a protected hand as against the appointment of the petitioner made as per Ext.P1. As can be seen from Exts.P7 and P9 revisions filed by the Manager and the averments in ground-D of this writ petition, it is the consistent case of both the Manager and the petitioner that at the time when he was appointed, there was no protected Full Time Menial available for absorption and therefore the petitioner's appointment was justified. It is also their contention that despite request, list of such Menials were not made available to the petitioner by the educational authorities. Although this contention has been urged before the statutory authorities, none of the impugned orders deal with this contention. Similarly, though this plea has been urged by the petitioner, in this writ petition also, counter affidavit is also silent on this aspect. 4. In my view, since it is the positive case of the Manager and also the petitioner that there was no protected WP(c).No.3244/08 3 Full Time Menial available at the time when the petitioner was appointed, it is a matter to be reconsidered. However, I do not find any justification for relegating the petitioner back to the Government and I feel that the 3rd respondent can examine this matter. 5. Accordingly, I direct that the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the issue and the only question that need be examined is whether any protected Full Time Menial was available at the time when the petitioner was appointed by Ext.P1. In case no such protected Menial was available as above, Deputy Director shall direct the DEO, 4th respondent to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the period mentioned above, if he is otherwise eligible. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.3244/08 4