High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-15Writ petition allowed; orders quashed; regulari...

P.K. Shahul Hameed and T.M. Krishnaveni v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.17250 of 2012 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date: 2013-01-15
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The orders approving daily wage appointments for the period 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 were quashed. The District Educational Officer, Palakkad, was directed to regularize the appointments on a regular basis, provided the petitioners submit undertakings to refund salary and allowances drawn if the Apex Court reverses the decision. Orders to be issued within two months from receipt of undertaking, with monetary benefits to be disbursed expeditiously thereafter.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; orders quashed; regularization directed upon undertakings; processing and payment timeline specified.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.K. Shahul Hameed
T.M. Krishnaveni

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad
District Educational Officer, Palakkad
Manager, K.K.M Higher Secondary School, Vandithavalam, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.V.A. Muhammed
• Sri.K.E. Hamza

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.V.Vijulal

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two teachers, P.K. Shahul Hameed and T.M. Krishnaveni, challenged the District Educational Officer, Palakkad’s/Alappuzha’s approval of their appointments as Upper Primary School Assistants on a daily wage basis for the period 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008. The petition argued that vacancies lasting beyond one academic year can be filled and the term of appointment need not co-terminate with the vacancy, a principle reflected in the Division Bench judgment in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009) 2 KLT 604. The State later issued Ext.P15 accepting this view with Ext.P16 clarifying its prospective effect, and directed regularization for terms exceeding eight months subject to undertakings to refund salary if a higher court reverses the decision. The respondents contended that the appointments and salary disbursements were made as per government directives, and that regularization should await apex court pronouncements. The Court, noting the authorities favoring regularization in long vacancies, quashed the daily wage approvals for 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 and directed the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, to approve their appointments on a regular basis, provided the petitioners submit undertakings to refund salary if the Apex Court reverses the decision. The order also directed expeditious processing and payment of monetary benefits. A correction later fixed the district as Palakkad (instead of Alappuzha).

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine: If a vacancy lasts more than one academic year, it can be filled and the term of appointment need not co-terminate with the vacancy; regularization may follow (Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala).
Doctrine: Regularization of daily wage appointments can be ordered with a condition to refund salary if a higher court reverses the ruling.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued for regularization of appointments based on the Unni Narayanan doctrine, asserting that vacancies lasting beyond eight months and into subsequent periods should be regularized; they offered undertakings to refund salary if a higher court reverses the decision, and sought immediate regularization rather than continued daily-wage status.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that appointing authorities acted within existing orders and directives for daily-wage appointments; they argued that the Unni Narayanan principle should not be construed to compel automatic regularization, and noted Ext.P16 clarifying the prospective effect and pending Apex Court review.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala	2009(2) KLT 604	Positive	The decision supported regularization of long vacancies; the current court applied this principle to require regularization subject to undertakings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.K. Shahul Hameed and T.M. Krishnaveni v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/25TH POUSHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 17250 of 2012 (E)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **---------------------** **1. P.K.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. KUNHIMOHAMMED, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT K.K.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,VANDITHAVALAM PALAKKAD - 678 534.** **2. T.M. KRISHNAVENI, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT K.K.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,VANDITHAVALAM PALAKKAD - 678 534** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA** **RESPONDENTS:** - **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** **3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD - 678 014.** **4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD - 678 014.** ## **5. THE MANAGER,** **K.K.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,VANDITHAVALAM P.O. VANDITHAVALAM,PALAKKAD - 678 534** **R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** ## **WP(C).No. 17250 of 2012 (E)** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EM 5/10105/08/DPI/D.DIS DATED 12/02/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE IST PETITIONER DATED 12/06/2006 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 09/03/2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 58578/B3/G.EDN. DATED 10/1/2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS/B4/32014/04(c) DATED 30/10/20O9 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 05/06/2006 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20/01/2010.** **EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. EM1/65206/2011/DPI/L.DIS DATED 23/12/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) 169/2O04/G.EDN. DATED 15/06/2004 OF THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 49229/L3/06/G.E DATED 25/05/2007** **EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F4/34993/2009/DPI DATED 14/08/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 14002/H2/06/G.EDN. DATED 05/04/2006** **EXHIBIT-P11-TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO. 104/2008/G.EDN. DATED 10/06/2008 OF THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT-P12-TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(4)KLT 604 DATED 06/04/209** ## **VK** **WP(C).No. 17250 of 2012 (E)** **--------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P13-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN COC 1002/2009 DATED 12/03/2010 EXHIBIT-P14-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 3502/2010 (A) DATED 01/12/2010. EXHIBIT-P15-TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) 56/2011/G.EDN. DATED 26/02/2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT-P16-TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 40873/J2/2011/G.EDN. DATED 20/08/2011** **EXHIBIT-P17-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 15461/2010 G DATED 10/11/2011** **EXT.P18. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27589 OF 2012 W DATED 21.11.2012.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **--------------------------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.17250 of 2012 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of January, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** The first petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant by Ext.P2 appointment order dated 12.6.2006 in the vacancy which arose on 23.1.2006 consequent on the appointment of Sri.Udayakumar as Higher Secondary School Teacher. The District Educational Officer, Palakkad approved the said appointment for the period from 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 on daily wage basis and on a regular basis with effect from 2.6.2008 onwards. Such approval was granted pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 12.2.2009 issued by the Additional Director of Public Instructions on a revision petition filed by the Manager. The second petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant by Ext.P5 appointment order dated 5.6.2006 in the vacancy of Smt.R.Saraswathy, who was appointed as H.S.A. with effect from 5.6.2006. The said appointment was approved on daily wage basis with effect from 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 and on a regular basis with effect from 1.6.2008 onwards pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 30.10.2009 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad. After the appointments of the petitioners **W.P(C).No.17250 of 2012** -:2:- were approved on daily wage basis for the period from 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008, a Division Bench of this Court held in _**Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala**_ (2009(2) KLT 604), that if the vacancy has a duration of more than one academic year, it can be filled up, that the term of appointment need not be co-terminus the term of the vacancy and that even if there is some delay in making the appointment, such appointment will have to be approved on a regular basis. Though the State of Kerala has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court canvassing the correctness of the said decision, the State Government later issued Ext.P15 order dated 26.2.2011 accepting the decision of this Court in _**Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala**_ (supra). Later the Government sent Ext.P16 letter dated 20.8.2011 to the Director of Public Instructions clarifying that Ext.P15 Government order will have only prospective effect. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge the orders approving their appointments on daily wage basis during the period from 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 and seek a direction to the District Educational Officer, Palakkad to approve their appointments during the said period on a regular basis. 2. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance. It is not in dispute that a Division Bench of **W.P(C).No.17250 of 2012** -:3:- this Court has in _**Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala**_ (supra) held that if the vacancy has a duration of more than one academic year, it can be filled up and the term of appointment need not be co-terminus the term of the vacancy. The Division Bench held that even if there was delay in filling up the vacancy, the appointment will have to be approved on a regular basis. It is not in dispute that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to have their appointments approved during the period from 13.6.2006 to 31.5.2007 on a regular basis, but for the fact that a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala in the Apex Court, challenging the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in _**Unninarayanan v. State of Kerala**_ is pending. Notwithstanding that fact, this Court has disposed of a large number of cases by directing that approval should be granted on regular basis subject to the appointee giving an undertaking to the effect that in the event of the decision of this Court in _**Unninarayanan v. State of Kerala**_ being reversed by the Apex Court, the teacher concerned will reimburse the amount drawn as salary and allowances. Ext.P17 is one such judgment in W.P(C) No.15461 of 2010. The Government have in Ext.P15 order accepted the decision of this Court in _**Unninarayanan v. State of Kerala**_ (supra) and directed **W.P(C).No.17250 of 2012** ## -:4:- appointments to be approved on a regular basis if they are for a term in excess of 8 months. I accordingly allow the writ petition quash the orders passed by the District Educational Officer, Alappuzha approving the petitioners' appointments only on daily wage basis during the period from 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 and direct the District Educational Officer, Alappuzha to approve their appointments on a regular basis, in the event of the petitioners submitting an undertaking to the effect that they will refund the salary and allowances drawn by them, in the event of the decision of this Court in _**Unninarayanan v. State of Kerala**_ being reversed by the Apex Court. The needful in the matter shall be done and appropriate orders issued within two months from the date on which the petitioners submit an undertaking accompanied by a certified copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition complete in all aspects before the District Educational Officer. Needless to say, the monetary benefits shall be drawn and disbursed expeditiously thereafter. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.** **ahg.** ## **W.P(C).No.17250 of 2012** -:5:- “The word **“Alappuzha”** occurring in lines 2 and 5 of the last paragraph of the judgment dated 15/01/2013 in W.P.(C) o.17250/2012 is corrected and substituted as **“Palakkad”** , vide order dated 07/02/2014 in I.A.No.1071/2014.” Sd-/ Registrar (Judicial) **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------W.P.(C).No.17250 of 2012 ----------------------------** ## **JUDGMENT** **15[th] January, 2013**