Salomy T.J vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11337 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.9004 OF 2021(A)


PETITIONER:

               SALOMY T.J
               AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS.M.A.,
               NOW WORKING AS HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (MATHS),
               SGHSS, KALAYANTHANI, THODUPUZHA,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 588.

               BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584.

      3        CORPORATE MANAGER,
               CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF
               KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691.

               SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9004 OF 2021

                                          2



                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of April 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"i) declare that petitioner is entitled to approval as UPSA w.e.f. 01-06-2010 and entitled to all consequential benefits as in the case of the beneficiaries of P3 Government order.

ii) issue appropriate writ or direction directing the 2 nd respondent DEO to grant approval to the petitioner w.e.f. 01- 06-2010 as UPSA and grant all consequential service benefits.

iii) or in the alternative direct the 1 st respondent Government to consider and pass orders on P4 revision petition filed by the petitioner within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court after hearing the petitioner and the Manager."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as UPSA

on 01.06.2010 in a regular retirement vacancy under the management

of the 3rd respondent. But the DEO approved the appointment only

with effect from 01.06.2011 in the teacher's package. It is submitted by

the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the subsequent

orders issued by the Government, Ext.P4 revision petition has been

submitted by the petitioner before the Government seeking approval WP(C).No.9004 OF 2021

of his initial appointment from 01.06.2010. It is submitted that the

only reason for non-approval of the same is that the Manager had not

submitted a bond in terms of G.O(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that all

appointments in additional division vacancies are liable to be

apportioned in the ratio 1:1 and if the appointment of protected

teacher is not made as provided in G.O(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated

12.01.2010, then the Manager should at least have submitted a bond

stating that such appointments would be made in accordance with the

provisions of the Government Order. It is also not known whether the

instant case is one where the Manager has challenged the G.O(P)

10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 and whether the issue is pending

before the Apex Court.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the

opinion that Ext.P4 revision petition preferred by the petitioner is

liable to be considered by the 1st respondent, in accordance with law.

In the light of the binding judgments of the Division Bench of this

Court, the question of approval shall be considered deeming that the

Manager has executed the bond as required under G.O(P)10/10/G.Edn. WP(C).No.9004 OF 2021

dated 12.01.2010. Even in case the Manager has approached the Apex

Court with a challenge to the Government Order, I am of the opinion

that the deeming of execution of bond is liable to be taken into

account, subject to the orders to be passed by the Supreme Court in

the pending matters.

6. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to

the respondents to consider Ext.P4 revision petition, after hearing the

petitioner as well as the Manager within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear

that the hearing can be conducted by any appropriate means,

including through video conferencing. In case the petitioner is found

eligible for approval with effect from the initial date of appointment,

the monetary benefits shall also be disbursed within a period of three

months thereafter.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C).No.9004 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2010 AS UPSA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WP(C)NO.5572/2020 DATED 26.02.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.337/2021/G.EDN.

DATED 15.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.03.2021.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL