Chithra V vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4452 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.9253 OF 2012


PETITIONER:

               CHITHRA V.
               AGED 37 YEARS
               W/O.SATHEESAN UNNITHAN,
               RESIDING AT MANGALYA,
               VALATHINGAL P.O., KOLLAM,
               PIN-691011.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
               SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               GENERAL EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT,
               GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               KOTTARAKKARA-691506.

      3        THE MANAGER
               SANTHINIKETANAM MODEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               PATHARAM-690567.


               BY SR. G.P P.M. MANOJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9253 OF 2012                 2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as a High

School Teacher in Natural Sciences in

'Santhiniketanam Model Higher Secondary

School, Patharam' on 12.07.2010 and

approval to the said appointment was

granted, as is evident from Ext.P1, on

12.07.2011.

2. The petitioner's grievance is that,

however, subsequently, the 2nd respondent

District Educational Officer (DEO),

Kottarakkara, issued Ext.P2 order modifying

the approval saying that the period when she

worked from 12.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 can

only be reckoned to be on daily wages, thus

directing to refund the excess salary drawn

by her, if any, during the said period.

3. The petitioner alleges that Exhibit

P2 has been issued by the DEO without

jurisdiction and based on a circular of the

Government, which is issued much later than

her approval; and therefore, prays that

Ext.P2 be set aside, as also the

consequential Ext.P3 order.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader

- Sri.P.M.Manoj, in response to the

submissions of Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad -

learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that Exts.P2 and P3 cannot be

found to be in error, because, the DEO has

only corrected an apparent mistake in the

approval order of the petitioner, because,

as is evident from the dates involved, she

was initially appointed on 12.07.2010 but

only till 31.03.2011, which is less than

eight months in duration. He submitted that

the Government, through order dated

26.02.2011, has clarified that appointments

made only to a period exceeding eight months

can be granted approval on regular basis and

therefore, that the DEO has acted within

competence in having issued Ext.P2. The

learned Senior Government Pleader,

therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be

dismissed.

              5.      when        I            evaluate        the        afore

       submissions,          it       is       indubitable         that     the

       petitioner's          approval           had    been     granted      on

12.07.2011 as per Ext.P1. However, this is

sought to be modified through Ext.P2,

applying a Government Order issued

subsequently, on 26.02.2011. I do not

require to speak much on this issue any

further, because, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has already answered the question as to

whether even short periods of appointment,

prior to the closure of an Academic Year,

can be granted approval, in State of Kerala

v. Sneha Cheriyan [2013 (1) KLT 755].

Paragraph No.26 of the said judgment renders

this position without doubt; and I am,

therefore, of the firm opinion that the

attempt of the respondents to recover the

alleged excess salary from the petitioner,

through Exts.P2 and P3, cannot find favour

in law.

In the afore circumstances, being guided

by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sneha Cheriyan (Supra) and on account of

the fact that the Government Order applied

against the petitioner is dated 26.02.2011,

which is much after she was appointed

regularly by the Manager, I order this Writ

Petition and set aside Exts.P2 and P3 to the

extent to which it directs recovery of the

alleged excess salary paid to the petitioner

during the period 12.07.2010 to 31.3.2011,

on the ground that her approval for this

duration can only be granted on daily wage

basis.

Needless to say, the petitioner's

approval as granted through Ext.P1 will

continue to be in effect.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/11.2.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12.7.10 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENDORSEMENT OF ORDER NO. B4/4973/10/D.DIS DATED 12.7.2011.

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF ORDER NO.

B4/1905/12/K.DIS DATED 22.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-

1905/2012/DATED 22.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (P) NO.

104/08/GN. EDN. DATED 10.06.08.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (P) NO.

56/11 GEN. EDN. DATED 26.2.11.