Wilson R. v. Director, Directorate of Vocational Higher Secondary Education & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/28ND JYAISHTA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 33225 of 2011 (C) ------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-----------------------** **WILSON R., NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER (ENGLISH) VICTORY VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------------------** **1. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY, SCHOOLS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. JYOTHI KUMAR G.S., VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN ACCOUNTANT AND AUDITING VICTORY VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121.** ## **3. THE MANAGER,** **VICTORY VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121.** **4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS, KOLLAM- 691 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIRUDHAN NAIR BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.MAYA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 3546/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.33225/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:-COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE OF THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P2:-COPY OF THE LIST OF APPLICANTS RECEIVED FROM THE SCHOOL.** **EXT.P3:-COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/11/95 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:-COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P5:-COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 2/12/95.** **EXT.P6:-COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10/1/96 SUBMITTED BEFORE THEMANAGER.** **EXT.P7:-COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5/1/07 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MANAGER.** **EXT.P8:-COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER DATED 3/3/2011.** **EXT.P9:-COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/5/11 OF THE DIRECTOR.** **EXT.P10:-COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P11:-COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/11/2011 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P12:-COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.** **P13:- COPY OF THE G.O.DTD. 17.6.2004 OF THE GOVERNMENT.** **P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.1.2012 OF THE MANAGER APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS PRINCIPAL.** **P15:- COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **R1(a):- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, VHSE.** **R1(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14.3.1996.** **R1(c):- COPY OF ORDER NO.92/2011 DTD. 3.3.2011.** ## **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.33225/2011** **R1(d):- COPY OF SALARY DETAILS.** **R1(e):- COPY OF SERVICE BOOK EXTRACTS.** **R1(f):- COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER.** **R2(a):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 1.12.1995.** **R2(b):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD 2.12.1995.** **R2(c):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 2.12.1995.** **R2(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 14.3.1996.** **R2(e):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 28.12.2011.** **R2(f):- COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** **R2(g):- COPY OF THE SALARY BILL.** **R2(h):- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD.31.10.2011.** **R2(i):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 14.7.1999.** **R2(j):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 16.5.2011.** **R2(k):- COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 28.4.2011.** **R2(l):- COPY OF THE DUTY CERTIFICATE DTD. 9.8.2011.** **R2(m):- COPY OF THE DUTY CERTIFICATE DTD. 13.12.2011.** **R2(n):- COPY OF THE SUBJECT LOG KEPT IN THE OFFICE OF THE SCHOOL.** **R2(o):- COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.33225 of 2011 & 3546 of 2012** ## **--------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of June, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011** The petitioner was initially appointed as Non-Vocational Guest Lecturer in English on 23.8.1995 in Victory Vocational Higher Secondary School, Neyyanttinkara. On the same day, the second respondent was appointed as Guest Lecturer in Accountancy and Audit. Five other persons were also likewise appointed as Guest Lecturers in various subjects both vocational and non-vocational. While matters stood thus, the Vocational Higher Secondary Course was sanctioned in Victory Vocational Higher Secondary School, Neyyanttinkara. Seven posts of Lecturers and one post of Clerk were also sanctioned. The Manager of the school thereupon invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as Lecturers by publishing a notification in the newspaper daily dated 21.10.1995. The seven Guest Lecturers and 27 others applied. They were interviewed in the office of the Assistant Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education at Kollam on 30.11.1995. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 appointment order dated 2.12.1995, the petitioner was appointed as Non Vocational Part time Teacher in English and that was approved by the Director of Higher Secondary Education with effect from **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 2 2.12.1995 as per proceedings No.E3/3277/96/DVHSE dated 14.3.1996. 2. The petitioner states that he had signed the attendance register along with the second respondent on 1.12.1995 after appointment as Non Vocational Teacher in English, but due to an inadvertent omission, the Manager issued an appointment order dated 2.12.1995 instead of issuing it on 1.12.1995, that he thereupon submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 10.1.1996 before the Manager requesting him to correct the date of appointment as 1.12.1995, followed by Ext.P7 representation dated 5.1.2007 seeking similar relief and that ultimately by Ext.P8 order dated 3.3.2011, the Manager corrected the date of the appointment order as 1.12.1995. The writ petition proceeds to state that the said order of the Manager was approved by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education as per Ext.P9 order dated 18.5.2011. It is stated that shortly thereafter the second respondent filed a complaint before the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education and on receipt of the said complaint the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education conducted an enquiry and issued Ext.P10 order dated 30.11.2011 cancelling Ext.P9 and Ext.P11 order censuring the Manager and the Principal of the School. It is stated that in view of Ext.P10 order, the option exercised by the petitioner pursuant to the 3 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** pay revision order dated 28.2.2011 was returned by the Assistant Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Kollam to be resubmitted after rectifying the date of joining service. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 and P11 orders and seeking the following reliefs: - _i. Call for the records leading to issue Ext.P10 and P11 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction._ - _ii. Declare that petitioner's date of appointment is 1.12.1995 instead of 2.12.1995 in the light of Ext.P4 attendance register and other connected records._ - _iii Call for the records leading to issue Ext.P13 objection of the 4[th] respondent and to quash the same with a direction to pay revised salary to the petitioner from 1.7.2009 as per G.O.(P) No.85/11/Fin/dated 28.2.2011._ - _iv. Declare that petitioner is entitled to get revised salary from 1.7.2009 due to the pay revision order issued by the Government to the aided school Teachers as per G.O.(P) No.85/11/Fin/dated 28.2.2011 untrammeled by Ext.P10 and P11 order._ - _v. Declare that Ext.P10 and P11 orders are void in the eye of law._ _3._ The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education has no power to review his own orders and that if the second respondent was aggrieved, he ought to have moved the Government in appeal and got Ext.P9 set aside. It is contended that all the Guest Lecturers appointed on 23.8.1995 were regularly appointed after the interview held on 30.11.1995 and all of them were permitted to join duty on 1.12.1995 and therefore, it is unimaginable that some among them joined duty only on 2.12.1995. It is contended that Exts.P10 and P11 orders have 4 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** no connection whatsoever with the pay revision implemented with effect from 1.7.2009 and therefore, the denial of pay revision benefits is arbitrary and illegal. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.1.2012. In paragraph 3 thereof it is stated that all the 7 Guest Lectures who were appointed on 23.8.1995 and 27 others were interviewed by a Board consisting of the third respondent-Manager, the Assistant Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Kollam, the Principal of Victory Higher Secondary School and a subject expert and after the interview a select list was prepared. It is stated that the petitioner was selected as Part-time Non-Vocational teacher in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900, that three other persons namely Smt.Jayalakshmi.G.S, Sri.Premkumar.I.G and Smt.Jiji Lal.C.H were also selected as Part-time teachers in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2400, that the second respondent, Sri. Dileep and Saju Micheal were selected as Full-time teachers in the scale of pay of Rs.2060-3200, that the second respondent was appointed on 1.12.1995 as per Ext.R2(a) order dated 1.12.1995, that Sri. I.G.Prem Kumar was also appointed by order dated 1.12.1995, that Sri.Saju Micheal and Sri.P.K.Dileep were appointed by Ext.R2(b) and R2(c) orders dated 2.2.1995, that three other teachers were also likewise appointed only on 2.12.1995 and that all the appointments were 5 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** approved by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education with effect from the respective dates on which the teachers were appointed by Ext. R2(d) order dated 14.3.1996. Relying on Ext.R2(d) it is contended that only two teachers namely the second respondent and Sri.Premkumar I.G were appointed on 1.12.1995 and their appointments were approved with effect from 1.12.1995. The second respondent has also stated that he and Sri.I.G.Premkumar were paid salary in full for the month of December, 1995 while the other 5 teachers including the petitioner were paid salary only from 02.12.1995 and not for the entire month. With reference to Ext.P1 attendance register relied on by the petitioner it is contended that the petitioner signed the attendance register on 1.12.1995 only in his capacity as Guest Lecturer and not pursuant to his regular appointment and therefore, nothing turns on the fact that the petitioner had marked attendance on 1.12.1995. With reference to Ext.P6, it is contended that though it is dated 10.1.1996, it refers to a representation dated 12.03.2005 and therefore, the only inference possible is that it is a fabricated document. With reference to Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner it is contended that it was made eleven years after the appointment order was issued and it was approved by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, and acting on that representation, the Manager of the School had no **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 6 authority to change the date of effect of the appointment of the petitioner which was approved only with effect from 2.12.1995 and that the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education also could not have corrected the date of effect of the approval as 1.12.1995 in the place of 2.12.1995. It is contended that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Director approving his appointment only with effect from 2.12.1995, he should have challenged that order before the Government. It is also contended that before the Manager issued Ext.P8 order and the Director issued Ext.P9 order, the other teachers who were appointed on 1.12.1995 were not put on notice and therefore for that reason also, no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid order. The second respondent has also stated that on coming to know of Exts.P8 and P9 orders, he preferred a complaint before the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education who directed the Assistant Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Kollam to conduct an enquiry and to submit a report, that the Assistant Director accordingly conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext.R2(h) report dated 31.12.1995 and that it was pursuant thereto that the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education issued Ext.P10 order cancelling Ext.P9. As regards denial of pay revision benefits to the petitioner, it is contended that pay revision benefits were not given to the petitioner on account of a mistake **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 7 committed by him in the option statement regarding the date of appointment and not on account of Ext.P10 and that the petitioner obtained Exts.P8 and P9 orders by misrepresentation, suppression of material facts and relying on fraudulently created documents. Relying on R2(h) report, it is contended that the entire action of the Manager and the Director in the first instance, were fraudulently brought about. 5. A counter affidavit dated 16.03.2012 has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 4. After reiterating the contentions set out by the second respondent in addition it is stated that Ext.P3 letter relied on by the petitioner is a fabricated document. It is stated that the document by its very nature is suspect, that the petitioner was appointed along with 4 others only on 2.12.1995 and his appointment was with effect from that date only, that in the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Director pursuant to the directions issued by the Director it was revealed that the petitioner was appointed only on 02.12.1995 and not on 1.12.1995. It is stated that after the petitioner was first appointed on 2.12.1995 and his appointment was approved with effect from 2.12.1995 by order dated 14.03.1996, he was retrenched from service at the end of the academic year 1995-96 and was re-appointed by Ext.R1(f) order dated 03.06.1996 when the school reopened and in that appointment order it was mentioned that he was previously appointed and his appointment approved with effect from 2.12.1995 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 8 by order dated 14.03.1996 and that the re-appointment on 03.06.1996 was also approved by order dated 21.06.1996. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that Ext.P8 order is the out come of a collusion between the Manager and the petitioner and it was issued with the malafide intention of overcoming the seniority of teachers appointed along with and earlier than the petitioner. It is contended that as the petitioner was appointed only on 2.12.1995, the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education cancelled Ext.P10 order dated 18.11.2005 by issuing the impugned order. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 16.2.2012 wherein he has in paragraph 5 admitted the fact that his salary during the month of December 1995 was reduced by a day, that he thereupon made many complaints which ultimately led to Ext.P8 order which according to him was issued by the Manager to correct a mistake committed by him at the time of issuing the original appointment order. It is contended that to make such a correction there is no need to approach the higher authorities and the correction made by the Manager was approved by the Director by verifying the attendance register and other documents. The second respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit dated 4.03.2012 wherein relying on Ext.R2(i) circular dated 14.07.1999 issued by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, it is contended that the second 9 ## **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** respondent being a Vocational Lecturer will be senior to a NonVocational lecturer even if the Non-Vocational Lecturer is appointed on the same day and that as a Vocational Lecturer, she will also be the Academic Head. ## **W.P.(C) No.3546 of 2012** 7. The petitioner herein is the Manager of Victory Vocational Higher Secondary School. He is the third respondent in W.P(C) No.33225 of 2011. Pursuant to the interim order passed in W.P(C). No.33225 of 2011, the petitioner herein appointed the petitioner in W.P(C).No.33225 of 2011 as Principal of the school and forwarded the appointment order for approval to the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education along with Ext.P6 covering letter. Since no action was taken in the matter, the instant writ petition was filed for an order directing the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education to consider Ext.P3 order appointing the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33225 of 2011 as Principal of the school. The second respondent in W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011 has got himself impleaded as the additional fifth respondent in this writ petition. He has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.03.2012, contending that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011 is junior to him and therefore his appointment as Principal is illegal. Various other contentions are also raised in the counter affidavit. 10 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 8. I heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.P.Maya the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4 and Sri.Gopakumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Though the third respondent Manager has been served, he has not entered appearance or filed a counter affidavit. Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011 contended that the Director who issued Ext.P9 order does not have the power to review his own orders and therefore he could not have issued Ext.P10 order cancelling Ext.P9. The learned counsel contended that in the absence of conferment of such a power of review on the Director, Ext.P10 order is liable to be declared ultravires, illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16843 of 2010 [Natarajan v. State of Kerala ( 2011 (3) KLT SN 122)] in support of the said contention. Relying on Ext.P1 attendance register and Ext.P3 letter dated 30.11.1995 issued by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as all the 7 teachers were selected on the same day and the petitioner had worked in the school on 1.12.1995, he was entitled to get regular appointment with effect from 1.12.1995. The learned counsel contended that all that the Manger had done by issuing Ext.P8 order was to correct the mistake **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 11 committed by him when the appointment order was issued, that the said order was approved by the Director and therefore, as the Manager had only corrected a mistake and that action was ratified by the Director, the successor Director could not have in the absence of conferment of the power of review, reviewed Ext.P9 and issued the impugned order. 9. Per contra, Smt.P.Maya, learned Government Pleader and Sri.Gopakumar, learned counsel appearing the second respondent contended that the petitioner and 4 other teachers were appointed only on 2.12.1995, that only 2 teachers namely the second respondent and Sri.I.G.Premkumar were appointed on 1.12.1995, that the appointments were approved only with effect from the respective dates on which the teachers were appointed, that the petitioner had admitted the fact that the salary for one day was not paid to him as a regular teacher in the month of December, 1995 and therefore, as the petitioner was admittedly appointed only on 2.12.1995 and his appointment was approved only with effect from that date, the Manager could not have more than a decade after the appointment was approved, correct the date of the appointment order and seek approval of the appointment with effect from an earlier date. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner had marked attendance on 1.12.1995 only as a Guest 12 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** Lecturer and that he has in Ext.P6 representation itself admitted the fact that his appointment order is dated 2.12.1995, that a reading of Ext.P6 even if it is taken as a genuine document would only show that his claim was that he was eligible to get appointment from 1.12.1995 and that even on the terms of the request made by the petitioner, it is evident that he was in fact appointed only on 2.12.1995. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended relying on Ext.R2(d) report submitted by the Assistant Director after enquiry that it was only in the case of the petitioner that the Manager issued an order correcting the date of appointment as 1.12.1995, that in the case of four other teachers who were appointed on 2.12.1995, no such correction order was issued and that it was with a view to confer unmerited advantage on the petitioner that the Manager corrected the date of the appointment order. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that if the Director had no power of review as contended by the petitioner, then the Director who had approved the appointment of the petitioner as Part-time Teacher only with effect from 2.12.1995 by Ext.R2(d) order dated 14.3.1996, could not have approved the appointment with effect from an earlier date by issuing Ext.P9 order. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also contended that, the power to issue an order includes the power to withdraw it for valid reasons and if the Director was satisfied that 13 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** Ext.P9 order was passed on an erroneous assumption of his own powers he can revoke it for valid reasons. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel on either side. The fact that the petitioner's appointment was initially made only on 2.12.1995 is not in dispute. Ext.P5 appointment order and Ext.R2(d) order approving the appointment establish the said fact. In fact, the petitioner has in Ext.P6 admitted the fact that the appointment order was issued only on 2.12.1995. His case is that the date 2.12.1995 shown in the appointment order is clerical mistake. In this context it is relevant to note that the Manager of the school had appointed 7 teachers after an interview was held on 30.11.1995. 2 teachers namely the second respondent and Sri.I.G.Premkumar were appointed on 1.12.1995 and 5 other teachers including the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011 were appointed on 2.12.1995. The appointments were approved with effect from the dates on which the appointments were made. Ext.R2 (d) order establishes these facts. At the time when the appointment orders were issued on 1.12.1995 and on 2.2.1995 all the 7 teachers were working as Guest Lecturers. Therefore the mere fact that all of them had signed the attendance register on 1.2.1995 does not lead to the conclusion that all of them were regularly appointed on the same date namely 1.12.1995. The Manger had admittedly appointed 5 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 14 teachers including the petitioner only on 2.12.1995 and their appointments were also approved with effect from that date only. In such circumstances, as the appointment of the petitioner was approved only with effect from 2.12.1995, the date on which he was appointed, it cannot be said that there was a mistake in Ext.P5 appointment order. 11. That apart, the pleadings and the materials on record disclose that pursuant to Ext.P5 appointment order which was approved with effect from 2.12.1995, the petitioner was relieved from service on the last working day of the academic year 1995-96 and was reappointed only on 14.3.1996 as per Ext.R2(f) order dated 3.6.1996 wherein it is stated that his previous appointment was approved with effect from 2.12.1995. The Assistant Director who conducted an enquiry, pursuant to the complaint filed by the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011 has in Ext.R2(h) report dated 31.10.2011, stated that the explanation offered by the petitioner and the Manager that the date 2.12.1995 is a mistake which arose out of a clerical error cannot be accepted for the reason that the Manager had appointed 2 teachers (the second respondent and Sri.I.G.PremKumar) and the Clerk Sri.D.Pradeep on 1.12.1995 and 5 teachers including the petitioner on 2.12.1995 and that except in the case of the petitioner, the Manager has no case that the date given in the appointment orders 15 **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** is a mistake. A reading of Ext.R2(h) report discloses that the petitioner was appointed only on 2.12.1995 and not on 1.12.1995 and that he and other teachers who were appointed on 2.12.1995 had signed the attendance register was on 1.12.1995 only as Guest Lecturers and that the same attendance register was being used prior to and after 1.12.1995. It is evident from the materials on record that the petitioner was appointed only on 2.12.1995 along with 4 other teachers. Consequently his case that in the appointment order the date was incorrectly given as 2.12.1995 due to an inadvertent clerical mistake does not bear scrutiny and cannot be accepted. The explanation offered by the Manager who issued Ext.P8 order to correct the date of the appointment order as 1.12.1995 and Ext.P9 order issued by the Director approving Ext.P8 order are not in my opinion sustainable in law. 12. A Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party, has in **Balakrishnan Nair** v. **State of Kerala** [2008 (1) KLT 923] held that the Manager of an educational institution cannot tinker with an appointment order after it is approved by the Educational Officer. The Manger of the school could not have therefore varied the date of the appointment order as 1.12.1995 instead of 2.12.1995, a decade after the appointment was approved by the Director with effect from 2.12.1995. That apart, if as contended by the petitioner, the Director **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 16 had no power to review, he could not have issue Ext.P9 order dated 18.5.2011 by which he reviewed Ext.R2(d) order dated 14.3.1996 issued by him approving the petitioner's appointment with effect from 2.12.1995. Though the petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order on the ground that the Director who had issued Ext.P9 order had no power of review, I am of the opinion that as Ext.P9 order was passed on the erroneous assumption that the date of the appointment order was incorrectly given as 2.12.1995 instead of 1.12.1995 when as a matter of fact there was no such mistake and the Director had acted on the erroneous assumption that he had the power to review his own order approving the petitioner's appointment order with effect from 2.12.1995, I am of the opinion that applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in **Bhagwan Budha P.T.T.College** v. **State of Bihar** [2010 (4) KLT SN 84(C.No.97)], the impugned action of the Director can be sustained. In such circumstances, as the petitioner was appointed only on 2.12.1995 and without noticing the fact that the Manager had colluded with the petitioner and brought about Ext.P8 into existence, the Director had approved it by issuing Ext.P9 order, is not a reason to hold that the Director could not have on realising the mistake committed in issuing Ext.P9, revoked it by issuing the impugned order. I accordingly hold that the challenge to the impugned order is **WP (C) No.33225 of 2011** 17 without any merit. W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011 fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the view that I have taken, it has to be necessarily held that the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33225 of 2011 as Principal of the school cannot be sustained. Consequently the relief prayed for in W.P.(C) No.3546 of 2012 cannot also be granted. The said writ petition also fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- **P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** Rkc // true copy// PA to Judge