Appointments in educational institutions must be approved consistently with statutory provisions, particularly when made against retirement vacancies without valid objections.

J U D G M E N T

-----------------

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:-

i) To call for the records leading to Exhibits-P1 to P7 and to quash Exhibits P3 to P5 orders as well as the original order of the 4th respondent endorsed in Ext.P1;

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the appointment of the petitioner is entitled to be approved with effect from the original date of his appointment ie 02.06.2008 on as regular service; iii) To issue a writ or order commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2008 as regular service and to grant all consequential benefits including disbursement of salary vacation salary etc;

2. It is submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as HSA (Natural Science) in a retirement vacancy on 2.6.2008. The said appointment was not approved for the reason that the Manager had not accommodated a protected teacher. It is submitted that the 5th respondent accommodated a protected hand in the school from 23.10.2008. The approval was thereafter granted from 24.10.2008, but on daily wages.

Thereafter, the petitioner's appointment was approved from 01.06.2009 on regular basis. Seeking approval of appointment with effect from the initial date of appointment, petitioner had preferred statutory appeals and revisions. However, favourable orders had not been rendered. The petitioner therefore claims approval of appointment from the original date of appointment i.e.,2.6.2008 onwards on a regular basis.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is admitted that the petitioner had been appointed on 2.6.2008 in a retirement vacancy as HSA (Natural Science). It is stated that a protected teacher had been absorbed in the school with effect from 23.10.2008. It is therefore contended that the period from 24.10.2008 to 31.3.2009 was approved on daily wage basis and approval was granted from 01.06.2009 on a regular basis. It is stated that Ext.P6 judgment has no general applicability and the Manager was duty bound to follow the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules as well as administrative instructions.

4. I have considered the contentions advanced. The specific contention of the petitioner is that she had been appointed on 2.6.2008 against a retirement vacancy and that her appointment was liable to be approved with effect from the said date onwards. There is no pleading raised on behalf of the respondents that the Deputy Director of Education had made available a list of protected teachers for appointment as on the date when the petitioner was accommodated as HSA (Natural Science) with effect from 2.6.2008. With regard to the approval of appointment from 24.10.2008 to 31.3.2009 the issue directly covered by the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan [2013(1) KLT 755 (SC)] wherein it has been held that the vacancies which are of duration of more than one academic year, can be filled up and appointments approved on regular basis, even if the appointment is made during the academic year. The petitioner, having been appointed on 2.6.2008 against a retirement vacancy as HSA (Natural Science), there is no reason stated why the appointment could not be approved with effect from the said date. The reason stated that the absorption of protected teachers was only on 24.10.2008 cannot be sustained, in view of the fact that there is no pleading to the effect a list of protected teachers had been made available by the Deputy Director of Education as on the date of the petitioner's appointment.

5. In the above view of the matter, the objections raised as regards the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Natural Science) with effect from 2.6.2008 cannot be sustained, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala V. Nadeera [2013 (2) KLT 88 (DB)] the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to