STATE OF KERALA Vs. SOJI ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since identical issues arise for consideration in these cases, they are heard and decided together. The State of Kerala and its officers have preferred these appeals challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge by which direction had been issued to grant approval of the appointment of the teachers from the respective date of appointments.

(2.) In WA No. 1388/2019, the petitioner was appointed as LPSA in a promotion vacancy on 1/6/2011. Her appointment has not been approved on the ground that the school was an uneconomic school. The learned Single Judge observed that as a consequence of GO(P)No.199/2011 dated 1/10/2011, the Government Order dated 12/10/2006 will have no relevance. In so far as the petitioner is appointed on 1/6/2011, her appointment cannot be on daily wages. It was held that when the Government Order dated 12/10/2006 had abated on 1/10/2011, a teacher appointed in an uneconomic school is entitled for regular scale of pay and accordingly direction has been issued to approve the appointment of petitioner effective from 1/6/2011 in the regular scale of pay. The learned Government Pleader made specific reference to Government Order dated 12/10/2006 and circular dated 18/5/2007 issued in clarification of the said Government Order. The fact that the school was an uneconomic school is not in dispute. The only question is whether the Government Order dated 12/10/2006 and its clarification issued as per circular dated 18/5/2007 stood abated by issuance of Government Order dated 1/10/2011. Of course, in the Government Order dated 1/10/2011, it is stated that the Government Order dated 12/10/2006 will have no relevance. But, we are told that the said Government Order had been set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court as per judgment dated 15/1/2015 in WP(C) No.30107/2013 and connected cases. Therefore, no reference can be made to the said Government Order. Even otherwise, as on the date when the writ petitioner was appointed, Government Order dated 1/10/2011 was not in existence and therefore, the appointment could have been made only on daily wage basis. Learned Single Judge failed to take note of the aforesaid factual aspects while rendering the judgment and therefore the judgment is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner however would submit that on several occasions, the Government had approved the appointment of teachers working in uneconomic schools despite the existence of such Government Orders. He had produced Exts.R1(b) and (c) to justify the said appointment. All these orders are issued pursuant to directions issued by this Court. Whether they were actually entitled for the same are all matters to be considered on factual basis. At any rate, such Government Orders cannot be a precedent for this Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether any appointments could be made ignoring the Government Orders.