Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32341
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
MANAGER A.U.P. SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/18222/2009
SRI.JIJI THOMAS, SRIG.B.SHAMJITH
A government order cannot regulate appointments without corresponding statutory rule amendments, especially regarding vacancies lasting a full academic year.
Headnote:
Education - Appointment Approval - Government Orders, Rules - Ext.P1, Ext.P3
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner appointed a teacher, but the approval for the appointment was rejected based on a government order, leading to a challenge against the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the rejection order, citing a previous judgment that established the requirement for appointments based on vacancies lasting an academic year or more.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the teacher's appointment approval was justified under the applicable rules and government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted that a government order cannot override statutory rules without amendments, thus invalidating the rejection of the appointment based on an inappropriate application of the government order.
Final Decision: The rejection order was quashed, and fresh orders for the approval of the appointment were to be issued.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Manager of A.U.P.School, Karakkunnu in Malappuram District. He appointed one Smt. Naseera N. as Full Time Arabic Teacher with effect from 17.6.2008 in the retirement vacancy of Shri N. Usman, Arabic Teacher. Ext.P2 is the said appointment order. The approval of the said appointment is rejected by the third respondent which is evident from Ext.P3 order dated 23.9.2008. This is done mainly relying on Ext.P1 Govt. Order dated 10.6.2008. Ext.P6 is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala ( 2009 (2) KLT 604 ).
2. This court in Unni Narayanan's case ( 2009 (2) KLT 604 ) held that without amending the statutory rules, a Government Order cannot be pressed into service. Ext.P1 herein, was under challenge in those cases. 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 wpc 18222/2009 2 if, there is 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. In the light of the above, Ext.P3 order issued by the third respondent rejecting approval of appointment made by the petitioner, is quashed. There will be a direction to the third respondent to pass fresh orders as regards grant of approval of the appointment, in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench in the above decision, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the wpc 18222/2009 3 judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, before the third respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
