Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 59771
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
JIJI C A – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA/1825/2022
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
Once appointments are approved under the Kerala Education Rules, authorities must issue formal orders to proceed with salary payments.
Headnote:
Approval - Employment - Kerala High Court Act, 1958 Section 5; Kerala Education Act, 1958; Kerala Education Rules, 1959 Rule 8 - The court interpreted procedural requirements for appointment approvals under the Kerala Education Rules, affirming that approved appointments must lead to salary disbursement, which influenced the decision to mandate formal approval orders and salary payments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as teachers but faced delays in salary due to the lack of formal approval orders despite their appointments being approved via a portal. They sought a writ of mandamus for approval orders and salary disbursement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' appointments had been approved, and the delay in issuing formal orders was unwarranted. Hence, it directed the concerned authority to issue approval orders and disburse the overdue salaries.
Issues: Whether the delay in issuing formal orders of appointment approval prevented the petitioners from receiving their salaries despite prior approvals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that once appointments are approved under the relevant rules, formal orders are necessary for disbursement of salaries, and the authority must act expeditiously on such approvals.
Final Decision: The writ appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside, mandating salary disbursement and issuance of formal approval orders within two months.
J U D G M E N T
C.S.Sudha, J.
These intra-court appeals under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 are against the common judgment dated 26/10/2022 in W.P.(C)No.29791/2022 and W.P.(C).No. 29892/2022. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the Writ Petitions.
2. The petitioners in W.P.(C).No.29791/2022 have been appointed by way of Exts.P1 to P3 orders as LPSTs at Muchukunnu UP School. The first and the third petitioners were appointed in retirement vacancies that arose on 31/05/2020 and the second petitioner, against the retirement vacancy that occurred on 31/03/2020. The first petitioner was appointed with effect from 16/07/2021 and the second and the third petitioners were appointed with effect from 15/07/2021.
3. In Writ Petition No.29892/2022, it is alleged that petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as LPSTs and the 3rd petitioner as UPST in Chengalayi AUP School. The fourth petitioner has been appointed as LPST in Perinthilery AUP School. The first petitioner was appointed in a retirement vacancy that occurred in 30/06/2021. The second and the third petitioners were appointed against the retirement vacancy that arose on 31/05/2020 and 31/05/2021 respectively and the fourth petitioner, against the retirement vacancy that occurred on 31/03/2020. As per Exts.P1 to P4, the appointments of the petitioners were made with effect from 15/07/2021. It is the case of the petitioners in both the W.P.s that, going by the details available in the website maintained by SAMANWAYA portal, the appointment of the petitioners has been approved. Ext.P4 is a copy of the printout taken from the website maintained by the SAMANWAYA portal. However, formal orders of approval has not been issued by the third respondent so far and on the said ground the petitioners have not been allotted Permanent Employee Number (PEN), so as to claim salary. The petitioners had approached the third respondent for allotting PEN to them based on their approval of appointments. However, the third respondent is delaying the same causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioners have been working from July 2021 onwards without salary. Therefore, the writ petitions were filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the third respondent to issue formal orders approving the appointment of the petitioners and for directing the third respondent to disburse their salary and other benefits to the petitioners from the date of their respective appointments.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in appeal.
5. Heard Sri.Muralidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ appeals and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. The writ petitions were dismissed on two grounds - (i) that the procedure contemplated under Sub Rule (2) to Rule 8 of the Kerala Education Rules ,1959 (the KER ) has not been completed and that no formal order of appointment of the petitioners has been issued and (ii) order dated 06/09/2021 vide no.H(2)/19500/2019/D.G.E issued by the Additional Director General of General Education by which the petitioners were granted approval, has been quashed in W.P(C)No.19808/2021 and so the educational authorities could not have issued formal orders of approval of the petitioners.
Here we refer to the amended Sub Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 which read -
(1) The appointment order signed by the Manager and the teacher along with other documents, as required by the Director, from time to time, shall be submitted by the Manager to the Educational Officer for approval through 'SAMANWAYA', the web portal provided by the Department of General Education for the purpose of approval of appointments and fixation of the staff strength in the schools, within fifteen days from the date of joining duty of the appointee in the manner prescribed by the Director.
xxxxxxxxxx
(2) The Educati
