Najama.V vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5741 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.220 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               NAJAMA.V
               AGED 37 YEARS
               ARABIC TEACHER, KARAYAD EAST A.L.P SCHOOL, KARAYAD,
               KOZHIKODE - 673524.

               BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
               JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

      3        ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               KOYILANDI - 673507.

      4        MANAGER
               KARAYAD EAST A.L.P SCHOOL, KARAYAD,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673524.

      5        HEADMASTER
               KARAYAD EAST A.L.P SCHOOL, KARAYAD,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673524.



               T RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SR GP

     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.220 OF 2021(B)

                                        2



                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts.P2 & P8 and to the extent denial of approval from the date of appointment in Ext.P1 as it is illegal and unjustifiable.

II. To issue a writ mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 3 rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Arabic Teacher (Part-Time) from 01.06.2009 onwards in Karayad East ALP School, Karayad and to direct to disburse all consequential monitory benefits to her forthwith.

III. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval as Arabic Teacher in the light of Ext.P5 Judgment issued by this Hon'ble Court."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

Ext.P8 order has been passed by the Government with regard to the

approval of appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of

appointment i.e, 01.06.2009 and has directed that the said

appointment shall be approved on condition that the Manager

submits a bond in terms of G.O.(P). No.10/10.G.Edn. Dated 12.01.2010. WP(C).No.220 OF 2021(B)

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

Manager would not be willing to execute such a bond and that like in

all other cases where this Court has directed the Manager should be

deemed to have executed the bond and the appointment is liable to

be approved.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that, if the

Manager executes a bond, the issue will be resolved. However, in

view of the fact that the availability of the vacancy stands

established and since there is no other objection for the approval of

the petitioner's appointment but the fact that the Manager has not

submitted a bond in terms of the G.O.(P). No.10/10, I am of the

opinion that the Manager should be deemed to have executed the

bond and the appointment of the petitioner should therefore be

approved as provided in Ext.P8.

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

respondents 1 to 3 to deem that the Manager has executed the bond

and to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.2009

onwards. Even in case the Manager has challenged the provisions of

G.O.(P). No.10/10 before the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the WP(C).No.220 OF 2021(B)

deeming can be taken note of subject to the final orders to be passed

by the Apex Court. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the 3 rd

respondent on implementing Ext.P8 deeming that the Manager has

executed the bond within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. Monetary benefits shall be

disbursed within a period of three months thereafter.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP WP(C).No.220 OF 2021(B)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2009 THUS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. L.DIS C 2882/2009 DATED 05.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.60930/J2/G.EDN DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.DIS C 3662/2009 DATED 31.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2017 IN WA NO. 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 14.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2020 IN WPC NO.7136/2020 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.3185/2020/G.EDN DATED 30.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.