V S INDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the above orders of appointment were forwarded to > the District Educational Officer. Thiruvananthapuram , he refused to grant approval mainly relying on Ext. P7 order (G. O. (P) 169/04/g. Edn. dated 15/6/2004 ). In the said order Clause 6 stipulated that the claim for re-appointment under rule 51a of the KER will be limited to those who have been appointed against regular/leave vacancies having a duration of not less than one academic year. It was further provided in the said clause that the vacancies having duration of less than one academic year will be filled up only on daily wage basis.

(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that at the time when Ext. P7 order was issued by the Government, the relevant Rule in Chapter XIV-A Ker read thus : 7a. (1 ). . . . . .(2 ). . . .. . . .(3) Vacancies the duration of which is two months or less shall not be filled up by any appointment. It is contended by the learned counsel that since sub-rule (3) of Rule 7a, as it then existed, did not prohibit filling up of vacancies the duration of which was two months or more, the Manager was justified in appointing the petitioner in the two spells mentioned above.