IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
JINCY JIMMI. N
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.N I JIMMY, PALISSERY HOUSE,
THRIPAKULAM ROAD,
EAST FORT, THRISSUR,
KERALA-680005.
BY ADVS.
T.H.ARAVIND
YEDU KRISHNAN R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.
5 THE MANAGER,
CHALDEAN SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THRISSUR-680001.
SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she entered the service as an Upper Primary School Assistant ("UPSA") in the Chaldean Syrian Higher Secondary School, Thrissur with effect from 01.06.2009. Later, as is evidenced by Ext.P1 order, she was appointed as High School Assistant (Physical Science) with effect from 01.06.2010 onwards. However, her appointment was approved by the 4th respondent from 01.06.2011 onwards. Her grievance in this writ petition concerns the non-approval of her appointment from 01.06.2009 to 01.06.2011.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that the Government had, as per G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.8.2005, imposed a ban on the appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff in additional division vacancies. Later, by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, the ban on appointments was lifted subject to certain conditions. One among the conditions was that the Managers should execute a consent letter undertaking that in future vacancies, protected teachers equal to the number of teachers, appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10, would be appointed. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.06.2011 approving the WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022 3 recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher's package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioner was also included in the package and his appointment was regularised with effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioner, similarly placed teachers had approached this Court and by various judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to approve the appointment from the date of appointment by deeming that the manager has executed the bond. The petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the representation.
3. Sri. Aravind T.H., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is settled by now that even in cases wherein, bonds have not been executed by the Manager, the Managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers, equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period.
4. The learned Government pleader submitted that all appointments in additional division vacancies are liable to be apportioned in the ratio of 1:1 and if the appointment of the protected teacher is not done WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022 4 as provided in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, then the Manager ought to have executed a bond stating that such appointments would be made in accordance with the provisions of the Government Order. It is further submitted that some of the Managers have challenged G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court.
5. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the party respondent is dispensed with.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioner was appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioner was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 on the ground that there was a ban on appointments at the time of his initial appointment and that the Manager had failed to execute the bond in terms of G.O.(P)No.10/10. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors. [judgment dated 1.8.2017 in W.A.No.2111/2015], has held that in the case of non-execution of the bond by the Managers, it should be deemed that bonds have been executed and the Managers would be obliged to make an equal number of appointments when the appointments to additional vacancies made during the ban period WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022 5 are approved. Insofar as the pendency of the petitions instituted by the Managers before the Hon'ble Apex Court is concerned, the orders passed shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Apex Court in the pending litigation.
7. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:
a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 representation filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Suma Devi (supra). Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
b) While considering the representation, the Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon that the Manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022 6 also that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the final orders passed by the Apex Court in the pending petitions.
c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE avs WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7999/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 01.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.01.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN WP(C)NO.3635 OF 2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 28-01-2022