IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33074 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PADMAKUMAR.T.P,HSA (SANSKRIT),KMVHSS, KODAKKAD,KODAKKAD POST,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD-671 315,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER,KMVHSS KODAKKAD,KODAKKAD.P.O 671357,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.JOHNY THOMAS FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.33074/2010-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complaints above the delay in approving the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A in Sanskrit. A vacancy arose in the school on 31/03/2009 on the retirement of one Shri Pushkaran. The petitioner was appointed on 01/06/2009 by the Manager as per Ext.P1 order of appointment. It appears that there was a dispute regarding the Managership of the school. The petitioner was appointed by the then Manager. Even though the said dispute has been pending for a long time, according to the petitioner, since he has been duly appointed by the competent Manager and in the light of the principles stated by this Court in Padmanabhan Nambiar v. Government of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 725], he cannot be denied the grant of approval of appointment. It is in these circumstances, he seeks for a direction to approve his appointment expeditiously. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the history W.P.(C). No.33074/2010 -:2:- regarding the dispute in the Managership has been traced out. I am not going into the details of the said dispute. It is averred in paragraph (5) that the Manager is the authority to appoint a qualified person in a sanctioned post/vacancy and to submit the proposal for appointment to the educational authorities for approval. Reference is made to Rule 4A of Chapter III K.E.R which states that the Management dispute will not affect the approval of appointment of teachers and approval shall not be withheld if the appointment is against a sanctioned post. With regard to the eligibility of the petitioner, it is mentioned in the said paragraph as follows:- “In this case, the appointee is fully qualified and he is appointed against a sanctioned post and hence liable to be approved.” The counter affidavit further reveals that the approval of appointment is kept pending for want of clarifications from the Director of Public Instruction with respect to order dated 18/08/2010, which has been W.P.(C). No.33074/2010 -:3:- produced as Ext.P3 by the petitioner in the writ petition. In Ext.P3, the Director of Public Instructions set aside the order of the District Education Officer, Kanhangad approving one Shri Madayi Kunnihikrishnan as Manager of the school. Ultimately, in the operative portion, the following directions have been issued:- “Till a final decision is taken by Government regarding the takeover of the school, the District Education Officer, Kanhangad is entrusted to discharge the routine functions of the Manager. The vacancies arosed from 01/04/2010 and arising in future are to be filled up with protected or daily wage hands unless there is no Rule 51A, 51B and 43 claimants of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R.” 3. From the counter affidavit, it is revealed that a clarification is sought in respect of the last sentence in Ext.P3 order. Evidently, the said direction is in respect of vacancies which arise from W.P.(C). No.33074/2010 -:4:- 01/04/2010 and which will arise in future. Therefore, it need not stand in the way of the approval of appointment of the petitioner since he is appointed on 01/06/2009, in a retirement vacancy that arose on 31/03/2009. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Education Officer to pass appropriate orders with regard to the approval of appointment of the petitioner, especially in the light of the Judgment in Padmanabhan's case [1997 (2) KLT 725], within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment before the first respondent for compliance. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE