Authorities must act on appointment approvals under the Kerala Education Act; inaction is deemed unlawful.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim to be working as Teachers in Fr.Joseph Memorial Higher Secondary School, Puthuppady, Muvattupuzha, under the administrative control of the second respondent Manager. They say that they were appointed as per Exhibits P3 and P4, both dated 01.06.2011 and their grievance in this writ petition is that in spite of the fact that applications were forwarded by the Manager seeking approval of their appointments, along with all connected papers and documents to the District Educational Officer - the first respondent within time, the said authority has not taken any decision on the approval of appointment of the petitioners until now. The petitioners say that the failure of the first respondent to issue such orders amounts virtually to abdication of his duties invested with him under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules.

WPC 28141/11 2

2. I have heard Sri.Ganesh.K.R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the first respondent has been unable to take a decision on the applications of the Manager because the School concerned has two persons, who work as Managers for alternate years. According to him, the approval of the petitioners can be considered by the first respondent only if the consent of the other person, who works as the Manager in the alternate year, is also obtained. He further asserts that these two persons are brothers and that the directions in Exhibit P2 judgment of this Court that all appointments to the School be made based on the consensus of these two persons would have to be adhered to, while making any order of approval to the appointment of the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the conclusions in Exhibit P2 judgment would not in WPC 28141/11 3 any manner go against the approval of the petitioners' appointment, since the right to make appointments to the vacancies available is on the incumbent, who work as the Manager during the period when they do so. He says that refusal of the first respondent to consider the approval of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal and unlawful.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel as above. I have no doubt that as per the mandate of the KER the first respondent is obligated in law to consider and pass orders on the application for approval when the same is forwarded to him by the Manager concerned. The refusal to do so, as has been claimed by the petitioner, would necessarily have to be seen as abdication of duty and I do not see why the first respondent has refused to pass orders until now. If he has reason to reject the application for cogent and verifiable cause, it would certainly be open to him to do so, but inaction with respect to the application already forwarded is completely WPC 28141/11 4 impermissible. The findings in Exhibit P2 judgment, if, in the view of the first respondent, would impair the grant of approval to the petitioners, then he can say that in his order but to sit on the application without passing any order is grossly improper.

In such circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the first respondent to consider the grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioners pursuant to Exhibits P3 and P4, based on the application made by the Manager under the stipulations of the KER and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv