STATE OF KERALA Vs. JASIL P.M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 6/8/2021 in W.P.(C) No.2455 of 2021. Respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition are the Appellants in the appeal. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners were appointed on 12/6/2018 as Full Time Contingent Menials in Sanskrit High School, Vattoli (the school). Earlier on 4/7/2016, one K.K.Bijosh preferred an application before the Government for condoning the delay in preferring a claim for appointment in the School under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). The said fact was not brought to the notice of the Manager of the School by the Government. As such, the Manager was not aware of the pendency of this application when the petitioners were appointed in the School. However, by the time the proposals made by the Manager for approval of the appointments came up for consideration before the Educational Officer, the Government allowed the request made by K.K.Bijosh, and the delay on his part in preferring the claim for appointment under Rule 51B was condoned. The Manager, on coming to know of the said decision of the Government, challenged the same in W.P.(C) No.20794 of 2019 before this Court. Consequently, the proposals made by the Manager for approval of the appointment of petitioners 1 and 3 were returned by the Educational Officer with liberty to resubmit the same after the disposal of the writ petition preferred by the Manager. The proposals made by the Manager for approval of the appointment of the second petitioner was, however, rejected by the Educational Officer pointing out a few defects. The Manager challenged those decisions in appeals and revisions before the statutory authorities. While those matters were pending, the petitioners approached this court in the writ petition seeking to quash the orders issued by the authorities on the proposals made for approval of their appointments and orders directing the Educational Officer to approve their appointments.

(3.) The learned Single Judge considered the writ petition along with W.P.(C) No.20794 of 2019. As far as W.P.(C) No.20794 of 2019 is concerned, having noticed that there was a delay of almost 14 years in preferring the claim for appointment under Rule 51B and the contention of the Manager that the Government has no authority to condone such a long delay, the learned Single Judge took the view that an order in the nature of one passed by the Government ought not have been passed without affording to the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Government and directed the Government to consider the application afresh after affording K.K.Bijosh as also the Manager an opportunity of hearing. As far as the writ petition is concerned, the learned Single Judge took the view that since the petitioners were appointed before orders had been passed by the Government on the application preferred by K.K.Bijosh, there cannot be any impediment in approving the said appointments. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed directing the Educational Officer to approve the appointments of the petitioners, if the same are otherwise in order, within two months. The official Respondents have no grievance against the decision of the learned single Judge in setting aside the order issued by the Government on the request made by K.K.Bijosh and directing reconsideration of the same. They are, however, aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to approve the appointments of the petitioners. Hence this appeal.