IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16828 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASWATHI, SWAPNA VIHAR, KATAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, D.E.O.'S OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE MANAGER, HEMAMBIKA SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16828 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein was appointed as High School Assistant (English) in the second respondent's school and accordingly she joined duty on 14.1.2008. The proposal was mooted for approval of appointment before the District Educational Officer. Ext.P2 is the resultant order passed by the District Educational Officer whereby the appointment is approved only on daily wage basis for the period from 14.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 and on scale of pay basis from 2.6.2008. Apparently, the said order has been passed by the District Educational Officer in the light of G.O.(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008. 2. This court in a batch of cases, reported in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604) held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. It was held that “if the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, appointment can be made to fill up the same. The term of appointment need not be co-terminus with the term of the vacancy. If, in fact, the vacancy is having a duration of one academic year or more, even if, there is wpc 16828/2009 2 some delay in making the appointment, such appointment will have to be approved.” Ultimately, in para 12, a direction was issued as follows: “12. In the case of the writ petitioners in these cases, orders, if any passed, approving their appointments on daily wage basis, relying on Ext.P2 Government Order are quashed. All appointments, whether pending approval or already rejected, shall be considered/reconsidered by the Educational Officers concerned and fresh orders shall be passed in the light of the declaration of law made by us in W.P.(C) No.25176 of 2008. The salary found due to be paid to the incumbents concerned shall be released immediately. The action in this regard shall be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” 3. Therefore, Ext.P2 to the extent to which the approval for the period from 14.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 has been granted on daily wage basis, is set aside. The District Educational Officer will pass appropriate fresh orders in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the above judgment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/