Rajan Thomas vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17476 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17232 OF 2021          1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 17232 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          RAJAN THOMAS
          AGED 43 YEARS
          S/O LATE P.J.THOMAS, ST.GEORGE H.S.S,
          ARUVITHARA.P.O, KOTTAYAM,
          RESIDING AT POORKATTIL, PANACHIPARA, POONJAR.P.O,
          KOTTAYAM.

          BY ADV B.MOHANLAL



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHY.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

    3     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          KOTTAYAM-686001.

    4     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
          KANJIRAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686507.

    5     THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
          ERATTUPETTA, ERATTUPETTA.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686121.

    6     THE MANAGER
          CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF PALA,
          PALA.P.O,
          KOTTAYAM-686575.

          SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP
 WP(C) NO. 17232 OF 2021        2



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17232 OF 2021                3




                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he was appointed as U.P.S.A in St.Joseph's

U.P.S, Maniyamkunnu, an aided school, under the management of the 6th

respondent for the period from 01.06.2009 to 31.03.2010 in a newly created

post, as per Ext.P1 order. He contends that though the Manager forwarded

Ext.P1 to the 5th respondent for approval, the same was declined by Ext.P2

order. The reason stated was that the additional post was not sanctioned by

the Government against the new division vacancy. The petitioner states that

challenging Ext.P2 order, Ext.P3 appeal was preferred by the 6th respondent

before the 4th respondent. The said appeal was disposed of by Ext.P4 order

directing the 6th respondent to take necessary steps in tune with G.O(P)

No.10/10/G.Edn dated 12.01.2010.

2. The petitioner contends that in the light of Ext.P11 judgment by the

Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 300/2019 and connected cases dated

09.08.2019, the appointment has to be approved even in the cases of non-

execution of the bond by the Managers treating that the Managers are deemed

to have executed the bond they would be obliged to make appointments from

the list of protected teachers, equal to the number of appointments approved

during the ban period. Stating all these aspects including the law laid down by

this Court in Ext.P11 judgment, and raising all the tenable legal contentions the

petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P12 representation before the 1st

respondent.

3. Sri.B.Mohan Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

his limited prayer is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass

expeditious orders on Ext.P12 within a time frame.

4. Heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. 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) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions

made in Ext.P12 representation, there will be a direction to

the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P12, in the light of the law laid down in

Ext.P11, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his

authorised representatives.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of three months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

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.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17232/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1/1559/09 DATED 15.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.B/70/2009 DATED 29.10.2009 FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/8478/2009/K.DIS DATED 11.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETIITONER AND ITS TYPED COPY.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.B4/3575/10/K.DIS.DATED 09.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.274/2011 /PROBATION DATED 13.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/4313/11 DATED 18.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO:B/43/2010 DATED 19/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:B4/8907/2012 DATED 25/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.08.2019 IN W.A.NO.300/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/08/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETIITONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL