Vineetha Mohan C vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5732 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.4077 OF 2021(H)


PETITIONER:

                VINEETHA MOHAN C.
                AGED 36 YEARS
                WIFE OF VIPIN V. VARGHESE, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
                TEACHER, CHALDEAN SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001

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

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
                EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
                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,
                PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020

      5         THE MANAGER,
                CHALDEAN SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THRISSUR
                DISTRICT-680 001


                SR GP NISHA BOSE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4077 OF 2021

                                     2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th 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 01.06.2010 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 01.06.2010 as UPSA and disburse the attendant benefits forthwith.

(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1 st Respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P-6 with notice to the Petitioner and in a time bound manner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially

appointed as UPSA in Chaldean Syrian Higher Secondary School,

Thrissur on 1.6.2010 in the 5th respondent's school and the WP(C).No.4077 OF 2021

appointment was rejected by the Educational Authorities stating

that the Manager has not fulfilled the condition laid down in

G.O(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. However, her

appointment was approved with effect 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 her initial

appointment from 01.06.2010 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 12.1.2010.

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) 10/10/G.Edn. dated

12.1.2010, 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 WP(C).No.4077 OF 2021

Manager has challenged the G.O(P) 10/10/G.Edn. dated

12.1.2010 and whether the issue is pending before the Apex

Court.

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 Single

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. dated 12.1.2010. 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 is liable

to be taken into account and such deeming will be 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.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 WP(C).No.4077 OF 2021

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

ssa WP(C).No.4077 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2010

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-

4331/2010/K.DIS DATED 03.05.2011

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019

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

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.10.2020 FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT