GIGI PAPPACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is against cancellation of approval granted as per Ext. P1, by the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext. P2 which stands confirmed by the Government in Ext.P3. The appointment of the petitioner is effective from 02.06.2004. The Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P2 cancelled the approval granted stating that the school is a newly opened one and therefore the Manager will have to appoint a protected teacher. This is confirmed by the Government in Ext. P3. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit of the Manager that he had appointed a protected hand namely, Smt. K.T. Kathrina on 09.12.1980 and she retired from service in the year 2000. It is, therefore, submitted that the obligation to appoint a protected hand has been complied with by the Manager. Apart from the same, it is pointed out that in the year 2008, another protected hand has been appointed by the Manager. Now after the said appointment, the approval of appointment of the petitioner has been granted from 22.02.2008 by Ext. P15 and the petitioner is getting salary. Therefore, the claim for approval for the anterior period based on Ext.P1 is the issue to be considered by this Court.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is pointed out that after the approval was granted, it was noticed that the appointment is against G.O.(P) No. 178/2002/G.Edn. dated 28.06.2002 and the said fact was reported to the Director of Public Instruction who cancelled the appointment. The petitioner was paid pay and allowances upto 31.05.2005. It is also stated that 22.02.2008 is the date on which a protected teacher was appointed in the school and from that date, the petitioner has been given pay and allowances.

(3.) As far as G.O.(P) No. 178/2002/G.Edn. dated 28.06.2002 is concerned, it can be seen that the stipulation therein that all the vacancies should be filled up by protected hands stands varied by the Government itself by G.O.(P)No. 46/2006/G.Edn dated 01.02.2006 wherein it is mentioned that the obligation is only to appoint one protected hand and that it can be effected in the next arising vacancy. Therefore, the objection that G.O.(P)No. 178/2002/G.Edn. dated 28.06.2002 will affect the appointment of the petitioner cannot be sustained.