(1.) The prayers in this Writ Petition are as follows:
(2.) Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Though the 5th respondent -Manager has been duly served, he has not chosen to enter appearance. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the 5th respondent -Manager is fully supporting the claim of the petitioner.
(3.) Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that major part of the petitioner's grievances have been effectively redressed by the educational authorities concerned by the issuance of Ext.P -6 proceedings dated 4.4.2016 whereby the statutory educational officer concerned, viz., 4th respondent -AEO, Tanur, has approved the appointment of the petitioner as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) in the 5th respondent -Aided U.P.School, on regular basis in the regular scale of pay with effect from 1.6.2013. But that he further has ordered approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the said post merely on daily wage basis for the period from 7.1.2013 to 31.3.2013. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is fully satisfied with the direction given by the 4th respondent -AEO in the proceedings dated 4.4.2016 referred to in Ext.P -6 to the extent her appointment has been approved in the post of LPSA in the regular scale of pay for the period from 1.6.2013 onwards and the limited subsisting grievance now faced by the petitioner is only that instead of allowing approval of her appointment for the period from 7.1.2013 also on regular basis, the educational authority has chosen to limit by ordering that approval of appointment of the petitioner in the said post for the period from 7.1.2013 to 31.3.2013 shall be treated only for the purpose of drawing daily wages. It is contended by the petitioner that it is not in dispute that the educational authorities have appointed the petitioner in the regular vacancy on 7.1.2013 by Ext.P -1 in a regular vacancy caused by the retirement of Smt.K.Prabha, with effect from 31.12.2012 and therefore her appointment with effect from 7.1.2013 as per Ext.P -1 is in respect of a regular vacancy which would have been continuing even after the academic year 2012 -13 as the said vacancy existed even beyond 31.3.2013. It is urged that the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was on a regular vacancy as discernible from Ext.P -6 and that the petitioner has been appointed to the said post with effect from 7.1.2013 and further that even the 4th respondent -AEO has considered that the petitioner is entitled for approval on that appointment in regular scale of pay from 1.6.2013 onwards itself clearly shows that the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed on 7.1.2013 is one which was continuing from 7.1.2013 onwards, to extend even beyond that academic year, etc. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and it is covered by the ruling of the Apex Court in the case State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan reported in 2013 (1) 755 KLT (SC), etc. The learned counsel would also urge his contention in the light of various Government Orders referred to in the said judgment of the Apex Court as well as other Government Orders. As the decision in the matter of approval of the petitioner as LPSA has been rendered only by the first level educational authority concerned viz., 4th respondent -AEO, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court may desist from the adjudication on merits of the matter and may remit the matter to the educational authorities for consideration of these crucial aspects of the matter based on the decision of the apex Court in Sneha Cheriyan's case (supra) as the same has not been taken into account by that officer. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4.4.2016 of the 4th respondent -AEO referred to in Ext.P -6 to the limited extent it restricts the approval granted to the petitioner as LPSA for the period from 7.1.2013 to 31.3.2013 as one only for drawing daily wages is set aside and remitted. It is made clear that the decision taken by the 4th respondent in the proceedings dated 4.4.2016 referred to in Ext.P -6 to the extent it approves the appointment of the petitioner from 1.6.2013 on regular scale of pay basis is upheld and is not interfered by this Court. Based on the said quashment of the restrictive condition imposed by the 4th respondent -AEO in the proceedings dated 4.4.2016 referred to in Ext.P -6, the matter in that limited regard is remitted to the 4th respondent -AEO afresh. The petitioner's claim that he was indeed appointed in the said regular vacancy from 7.1.2013 which had subsisted even beyond the end of the academic year 2012 -13 and it was a regular vacancy on account of the retirement should be considered by the educational authority in the light of the ruling of the Apex Court in Sneha Cheriyan's case (supra) as well as the Government Orders that may be urged by the petitioner. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled not only for approval on regular basis for the period from 7.1.2013 onwards but also eligible for vacation salary for the period from 1.4.2013 to 31.5.2013 should also be pointedly considered by the 4th respondent -AEO. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation in that regard and produce a copy of the decision of the Apex Court in Sneha Cheriyan's case (supra) as well as the Government Orders concerned on which she proposes to place reliance. This the petitioner may do within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The 4th respondent -AEO will give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent -Manager and take a considered decision thereon on these aspects of the matter, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a representation as directed above. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.