R ANILKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a Full Time Menial appointed under the 5th respondent with effect from 1/11/2005 against a sanctioned vacancy. Petitioner seeks to quash Exts.Pl to P4 orders to the extent the said orders refused the approval of appointment. He also seeks for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial and for consequential benefits including arrears of salary. Exts.Pl to P4 are the orders respectively issued by the statutory authorities rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner. The reasons stated for rejecting the proposal for approval are that as per G.O.(P) 178/02 Gen. Edn. dated 28/6/2002 the Government ordered that the appointment in newly opened/upgraded schools must be from protected teachers, since the school is a newly upgraded one, the proposal for approval was rejected for non-compliance with the terms of G.O.(P) No. 178/02 Gen. Edn. Dated 28/56/2002.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is contended that the management is bound to appoint a protected hand before making any new appointments. The Government Order also stipulates that the Deputy Director of Education shall make available district-wise and category-wise list of protected teachers on the basis of total length of service to be appointed as teachers. Let me assume that there is similar order in respect of non-teaching staff. Even then the Manager of respective schools may not be in a position to know whether there are protected hands available for appointment. That is the reason why in the order dated 28/6/2002 the Deputy Director of Education concerned is entrusted with the duty to make available district-wise and category-wise list of protected teachers to each and very Managers. The order is so clear that there is necessity to appoint protected hands. The Managers are not in a position to appoint protected hands unless and until they are made available the category-wise and district-wise list of protected hands. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the list of protected hands has been communicated to the Manager as per letter No. A5.6278/06 dated 27/1/2007 of the District Educational Officer, Wandoor and that no request is seen made by the Manager to the Deputy Director of Education to allot a protected Full Time Menial to the school at the time of appointment of the petitioner. I find that the reason stated by the 1 st respondent cannot stand. The vacancy of Full lime Menial arose on 15/7/2005. The Manager appointed the petitioner as Full Time Menial on 1/11/2005. Admittedly, the Manager has no information about the availability of any protected hand in the district. The authority did not care to make available the district-wise and category-wise list of protected Full Time Menials to the Manager, though they are duty bound to do so.

(3.) In these circumstances, this Court finds that the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial is in order. No valid reasons are made out by the Educational Authorities for not approving the appointment of the petitioner.