The court ruled that staff fixation for approval of appointment under education law must consider statutory timelines.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as an High School Assistant (HSA) (Malayalam), with effect from 02.06.2014, against a by transfer appointment vacancy on account of the transfer appointment of the existing HSA as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) (Junior) (Malayalam), by Ext.P1 order. However, the appointment, as above, is sought to be rejected by the District Educational Officer (DEO), pursuant to Ext.P2 order dated 23.08.2016. The appeal against the afore order by the Manager of the School is rejected by the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P3 order dated 15.02.2017. The further revision is also rejected by the 2^nd respondent on account of which the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Government. The Government, by Ext.P6 dated 02.03.2019, rejected the revision petition, upholding the refusal to approve the appointment, as above. The order at Ext.P6 was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.10252 of 2019 before this Court, and by Ext.P8 judgment dated 01.03.2023, this Court specifically took note of the contention raised by the petitioner with reference to the staff fixation for the year 2010-11, pursuant to the Government Order - G.O.(P)No.199/ 2011/G.Edn. dated 01.10.2011, as well as the latest circulars with specific reference to the mandate under Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIVA, Kerala Education Rules , 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ KER ’) and directed the Government to consider the question afresh, since if the claim was considered within the statutory time limit prescribed as above, the staff fixation for the year 2010-11 ought to have been applied. However, by the impugned order at Ext.P9 dated 10.11.2023, the Government sought to reject the approval, as sought for by the petitioner, essentially noting that there was no post for accommodating the petitioner with reference to the subsequent staff fixation, and the promotion vacancy was also not approved. It is seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P9 that the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition.

2. Heard Sri.T.T.Muhamood, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader.

3. It is not in dispute that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court has specifically directed the Government to consider the question as to whether, if the petitioner’s appointment was considered for approval within the statutory time limit mentioned in Rule 8(2) of chapter XIVA, KER , whether the staff fixation order for the year 2010-11 ought to have been applied or not. But in the impugned order at Ext.P9, the consideration made is again with reference to the staff fixation for the subsequent period, on account of which there is no established post for accommodating the petitioner. In my opinion, the consideration made, while issuing the order at Ext.P9, is not with reference to a specific direction issued at Ext.P8.

4. In such circumstances, normally, the matter requires to go back to the Government for fresh consideration.

5. However, in the case at hand, this Court notices that even according to the Government, on account of the subsequent circulars issued, like the circular dated 30.07.2013, the staff fixation for the year 2010-11 ought to have been continued and salary, etc., disbursed until further orders to the incumbents. Similarly, an almost identical matter was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.38114 of 2018, by judgment dated 15.01.2021, finding that the staff fixation made for the year 2010-11 ought to hold the field at least till 2016-17. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was justified in contending that his approval ought to have been with reference to the time limit mentioned under Rule 8(2) of Ch