Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47847
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
SANDHYA RAGHAVAN N. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/16208/2009
SRI.JIJO PAUL
Vacancies lasting one academic year or more necessitate approval of appointments regardless of wage classifications stated in government orders.
Headnote:
Appointment - Educational Employment - G.O.(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. - The court quashed the approval of appointment based on daily wages, stating that appointments must be considered for vacancies of one academic year or more without reliance on unsupported government orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the non-approval of their appointment as U.P.S.A. due to the government's guideline stating that appointments below one academic year were not valid, leading to this writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that prior decisions established that appointments for vacancies of one academic year or longer must be approved, regardless of delays, thus quashing the approval based on daily wage provisions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's appointment could be approved despite being initially classified under daily wages in violation of statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi: A government order cannot supersede statutory rules without amendments, and appointments for vacancies of a year or more must be approved irrespective of earlier decisions limiting wages.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of favorably for the petitioner, quashing the previous employment approval.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A. by the 4th respondent Manager on 16.6.2008. The appointment was not approved, going by Ext.P3, for the reason that the period of appointment is below one academic year and in the light of G.O.(P) No.104/08/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008, which is produced as Ext.P1.The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P3 in this writ petition.
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. Ext.P1 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 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:
wpc 16208/2009 2 “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 to the extent to which approval is given only on daily wages basis is quashed. The third respondent will pass fresh orders 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 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.)
wpc 16208/2009 3 kav/
