Jwelin Joy vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5385 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5385 Ker
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2021

Kerala High Court

Jwelin Joy vs The State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2021

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                           WP(C).No.1177 OF 2019(V)


PETITIONERS:

       1         JWELIN JOY
                 AGED 44 YEARS
                 WIFE OF ELDOSE, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH), ST.MARYS
                 COLLEGE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD
                 DISTRICT-673592.

       2         BEENA UMMEN
                 HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH), ST.MARYS COLLEGE HIGHER
                 SECONDARY SCHOOL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

                 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-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

       2         THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
                 JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

       3         THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
                 WAYANAD AT KALPETTA-673121.

       4         THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                 KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673121.

       5         THE MANAGER,
                 ST.MARYS COLLEGE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SULTHAN BATHERY,
                 WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

       6         THE HEADMASTER,
                 ST.MARYS COLLEGE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SULTHAN BATHERY,
                 WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.


                 BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR. GP.

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1177 OF 2019(V)

                                   2



                            JUDGMENT

When this matter was called today, learned counsel for the

parties were ad idem that the issues in this case have been

answered by another learned Judge of this Court in Ext.P11

judgment.

2. I notice from the pleadings on record that the 2 nd

petitioner was appointed as a High School Assistant (HSA) in

English, into a vacancy that arose on account of another

Teacher having been availed Leave Without Allowances from

01.08.2008 to 31.07.2010; and that when the 2 nd petitioner was

so continuing in such vacancy, a regular vacancy arose on

01.06.2009, to which she was shifted. As against the remaining

period of the leave vacancy, the first petitioner was appointed,

but both the approvals have been declined by the Educational

Authorities solely for the reason that there was a ban of

appointment during the relevant period and that, subsequently,

the Manager had not executed a bond as is required by the

Government through G.O.(P)No.10/10/G.Edn dated 12.01.2010.

3. I see from Ext.P11 judgment that, noticing an

identical situation, a learned Judge of this Court had allowed it WP(C).No.1177 OF 2019(V)

and directed the respondents to pass orders approving the

appointments of the petitioners, deeming that a bond had been

executed by the Manager in terms of the aforementioned

Government Order.

4. I see no reason why I should not follow the directions

in Ext.P11 judgment, particularly when both sides agree that

the issues in these two cases are similar, if not identical.

5. In fact, Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam, learned

counsel for the Manager, submits that his client has already

executed a bond and therefore, that there was no reason why

the petitioners' approval ought not have been granted; and

further that there were no protected teachers for being

appointed at the relevant time and thus prayed that this writ

petition be allowed.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and

set aside Exts.P3, P4 and P5; thus directing the 4 th respondent

- District Educational Officer (DEO), Wayanad, to issue orders

granting approval to the petitioners from their initial date of

appointments as High School Teachers, on the strength of the

Board executed by the Manager in terms of G.O. WP(C).No.1177 OF 2019(V)

(P)No.10/10/G.Edn dated 12.01.2010.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the DEO, as

expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and it is needless

to say that all consequential benefits shall be paid to the

petitioners, without any avoidable delay thereafter.

SD/-

                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.1177 OF 2019(V)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.M(5)/28144/09/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 19.6.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/8517/2009/K.DIS.

DATED 30.3.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/7202/12/D.DIS. DATED 6.10.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM5/86021/2012/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 23.7.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B1/6624/2009 DATED 3.6.2009 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 30.5.2017.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.).NO.2944/2018/G.EDN.

DATED 2.8.2018 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2290 OF 2015 DATED 25-07-2017.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MIN W.A NO.2091/2018 DATED 28-06-2019.