Mini Chacko P vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3807 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

     TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.2624 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER:

               MINI CHACKO P.
               AGED 46 YEARS
               WIFE OF A.G.JENSON, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIAL
               SCIENCE), CHALDEAN SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
               SRI.M.SAJJAD

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANNEXE 11,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
               JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

      3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               THRISSUR AT AYYANTHOLE-680 003.

      4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               THRISSUR-680 020.

      5        THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
               CHALDEAN SYRIAN CHURCH SCHOOLS, OFFICE OF THE BOARD
               OF CENTRAL TRUSTEES, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.

               BIJOY CHANDRAN, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2624 OF 2021

                                          2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-2 and set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

ii) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get approval to her appointment from 01.06.2009 onwards and consequential benefits.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to approve the appointment of the Petitioner from 01.06.2009 as UPSA and disburse the attendant benefits forthwith.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P-6 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit."

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 01.06.2009 in the 5th respondent's school. The appointment was

initially rejected by the DEO stating that no additional post has been WP(C).No.2624 OF 2021

sanctioned to the school for insufficient accommodation and later,

the appointment was approved from 01.06.2011 onwards. It is

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P6

representation has been submitted by the petitioner before the

Government seeking approval of his initial appointment from

01.06.2009 to 31.05.2011. 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)

No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 and whether the issue is pending

before the Apex Court.

WP(C).No.2624 OF 2021

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

opinion that Ext.P6 representation 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)

No.10/10/G.Edn. 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.

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

respondents to consider Ext.P6 representation, 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 WP(C).No.2624 OF 2021

months thereafter.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C).No.2624 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2009

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B4/4499/09/K.IDS DATED 14.1.2010 OF THE DEO

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO 2290/2015 DATED 25.7.2017

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA N 2091/2018 DATED 28.6.2019

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO 60930/J2/11/G.EDN DATE 25.10.2011

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.10.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL