Nafla.T.E vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5738 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.4071 OF 2021(H)


PETITIONER:

                NAFLA.T.E
                AGED 33 YEARS
                LPST, AMLP SCHOOL,
                PARAPPUR EAST, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM-676503.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
                SRI.K.S.ROCKEY
                SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE
                SRI.GEORGE RENOY

RESPONDENT/S:

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

      2         THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
                VENGARA, MALAPPURAM-676304

      3         THE MANAGER
                AMLP SCHOOL, PARAPPUR EAST, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM-
                676503.


                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.4071 OF 2021

                                    2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 13.11.2008 and further to pay all consequential benefits within a time frame.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4, revision petition in the light of Ext.P3 judgment within a time limit and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially

appointed as LPST on 13.11.2008 in the 3 rd respondent's school

and the appointment was rejected by the AEO 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 WP(C).No.4071 OF 2021

was approved with effect from 01.06.2011 onwards under

Teacher's Package. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that Ext.P4 review petition has been submitted by

the petitioner before the Government seeking approval of her

initial appointment from 13.11.2008 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

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.

WP(C).No.4071 OF 2021

5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of

the opinion that Ext.P4 review 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 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.P4 review 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 WP(C).No.4071 OF 2021

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.4071 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.11.2008.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/9/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/7/2017 IN WA NO. 2290/2015.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 5/2/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/2/2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.