Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE24H DAY OF JANUARY20144TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2454 of 2014 () -------------------------- PETITIONER:-: --------------- KHADHARKUTTY U., AGED31YEARS S/O.SADIQUE, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER MES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PONANI, MALAPPURAM RESIDING AT USAINIKKANAKATHU HOUSE PONANI SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) RESPONDENTS:-: -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM - 679 001.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR - 676 101.
4. THE MANAGER, MES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PONANI MALAPPURAM - 679 577. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.A.FAYAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2401-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2454 of 2014 () -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF APPOINTMENT BY THE4H RESPONDENT DATED0106.2005. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.178/2002/G.EDN. DATED2806.2002. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.19/09/G.EDN. DATED0902.2009. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED2203.2012 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE1T RESPONDENT NO.27539/K2/2012/G.EDN. DATED0206.2012. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.104/2008/G.EDN. DATED1006.2008. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2454 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as Physical Education Teacher in M.E.S. Higher Secondary School, Ponnani. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the nature of the approval granted to his appointment covered by Ext.P1. The appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 was approved only on daily wage basis. A conjoint reading of Exts.P5 and P6 would reveal that it was thus approved relying on Ext.P6 viz., G.O.(P) No.104/2008 G. Edn dated 10.06.2008. The petitioner was appointed as early as on 1.6.2005 as is obvious from Ext.P1. The question of his approval was considered in 2012 in the light of Ext.P6 G.O. which was issued after about three years. The action on the part of the first respondent in considering the claim of the petitioner for approval based on Ext.P6 is illegal on another reason as well. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala V. Sneha Cheriyan reported in 2013 (1) KLT W.P.(C) No. 2454 of 2014 2 755 and the decision of this Court in NSS V. State of Kerala reported in 2013 (4) KLT921Ext.P6 should not have been applied in the matter of consideration of the approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Thus, it is obvious that Ext.P5 order was passed without any application of mind. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that an order passed with a closed mind is liable to be set aside. In the said circumstances Ext.P5 is set aside. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to consider the question of approval of appointment of the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE. dlk