Antony Dominic, J. 1. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and respective counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed by the official respondents in W.P(C).22582/12, which writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein. The first respondent was appointed in the school of the second respondent as HSA (Malayalam) on 20.7.2009 in a transfer vacancy. That appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer by order dated 9.11.2009. However, in the order of approval, the period 20.7.2009 to 12.3.2010 was approved on daily wages and approval on regular basis was granted with effect from 1.6.2010. That order was challenged by the Manager in an appeal, which was dismissed by Ext.P2 order.
3. Relying on the order of approval and observing that as on 1.6.2010, the first respondent was overaged, she was not paid salary. The first respondent filed Ext.P3 revision before the Government, which was rejected by Ext.P4 order. It was in these circumstances, the first respondent filed the writ petition mainly challenging the approval order, to the extent a part of her service was approved on daily wages and against denial of salary. By the judgment under appeal, learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and it is this judgment which is challenged before us.
4. Although various contentions raised by the appellants were reiterated by the learned Government Pleader, a perusal of the judgment shows that in concluding that the approval as granted by the DEO was erroneous and that the first respondent was entitled to salary, learned Judge has only followed the judgments of this Court in Unninarayan K. and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 604] and Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 921] and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Sneha Cheriyan and Others [2013 (1) KLT 755].
5. The fact that the principles laid down in these judgments are applicable to the case of the first respondent cannot be disputed. If that be so, the conclusion of the learned single Judge and the relief granted thereof cannot be questioned. Therefore, on merits, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the appellants.
6. However, we notice from the judgment that the learned single Judge had imposed costs of `25,000/- and ordered that it would be open to the State to recover the same from the concerned DEO, finding that the order passed by the DEO had to be deprecated and that his conduct was unworthy of a public servant.
7. Though we agree with the conclusion of the learned single Judge, we are unable to infer any malafide motives on the part of the DEO in passing the order. In such circumstances, we do not think that imposition of costs as ordered by the learned single Judge has any justification. Therefore, the costs levied in the judgment under appeal will stand deleted. In all other respects, the judgment in the writ petition is confirmed.
Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE