Lissa Tom Joseph vs The District Educational Officer and The Manager, Amayanoor High School

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in Amayanoor High School, Pala for different periods.The appointments were not approved by the District Educational Officer. On appeal, the Deputy Director of Education and on revision, the Director of Public Instruction confirmed the order of the District Educational Officer and rejected the approval.

The matter was taken up before the Government by the petitioner. The Government passed Ext.P1 order dated 16.8.2010. During the course of arguments, it would appear that the District Educational Officer pointed out that there was no approved Manager and therefore, nobody could execute the bond which is required to be made as per the Government Order in force. In Ext.P1 order, it was held thus:

The Government have examined the revision petition in detail. As per Rule 7A (3) of Chapter XIV A KER the vacancies, the duration of which is less than one academic year shall not be filled up and such vacancies shall be filled up only on daily wages as per GO(P) No. 169/04/G. Edn., dated 15.6.2004. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA in the leave vacancy with effect from 1.8.2007 to 31.3.2008 and from 2.6.2008 to 8.6.2008 shall be approved on daily wage basis if otherwise in order.

The appointment of the petitioner as HSA with effect from 9.6.2008 to 31.3.2009 shall be approved on daily wage basis and from the next academic years viz.2009-2010 and 2010- 2011, appointment shall be approved on scale of pay basis, if otherwise in order. The petitioner is also eligible for vacation salary in 2009-''10 and 2010-''11 by virtue of Rule 49 of Chapter XIVA KER.

The revision petition reads as 1st paper is disposed of as above.

The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to disburse the salary due to her as provided in Ext.P1 order.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 order itself makes it clear that the approval of appointments shall be made if the appointments were otherwise in order. It is submitted that there are some irregularities and the matter requires consideration by the District Educational Officer. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the appointment order was not signed by the approved Manager.

In the facts and circumstance of the case, it is only just and proper to direct the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the basis of Ext.P1, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the second respondent.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

The District Educational Officer (first respondent) shall consider and dispose of the question of approval of appointment of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order dated 16.8.2010, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the second respondent.