C.Prajeesha Kumary vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1403 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)


PETITIONER:

               C.PRAJEESHA KUMARY, AGED 29 YEARS,
               DAUGHTER OF CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP,
               HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHEMATICS),
               THAZHATH MELETHIL KOJA ALAM MITHEN RAWTHER MEMORIAL
               VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALLANA,
               ERUMAKKAD, PATHANAMTHITTA.

               BY ADVS. SRI.M.SAJJAD
                        SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
                        SRI.K.E.HAMSA

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
               JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

      3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               PATHANAMTHITTA AT TIRUVALLA - 689 101.

      4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA -689 101.

      5        SRI.ANWAR MOHAMMED, MANAGER,
               THAZHATH MELETHIL KOJA ALAM MITHEN RAWTHER MEMORIAL
               VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALLANA,
               ERUMAKKAD, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 532.

               BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI
                        SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)

                                   -2-

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of January 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Exts. P2, P4, P6 and P7, which

denies approval to her appointment as a High

School Assistant in Mathematics with effect

from 01.06.2010 in the Thazhath Melethil Koja

Alam Mithen Rawther Memorial Vocational

Higher Secondary School, of which 5th

respondent is the Manager.

2. Sri.M.Sajjad, learned counsel for the

petitioner, asserts that the orders denying

approval to his client are per se illegal,

since it does not take into account the

impact of G.O(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated

12.01.2010, particularly because, the only

reason stated is that at the time when she

was appointed, there was a ban of

appointments imposed by the Government. WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)

3. Sri.M.Sajjad submitted that, going by

the terms of G.O(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated

12.01.2010, the Manger is to execute a bond

that he will appoint protected teachers in

the subsequent vacancies and that he is ready

to do so. He alleged that, however, without

considering this, the Government has now

issued Ext.P7 rejecting his client's

approval.

4. The learned Senior Government

Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that, as is

evident from Ext.P7, the Government had no

other option but to reject the proposal for

approval of the petitioner's appointment

because the School was granted additional

divisions for the year 2007 - 2008 and 2008 -

2009, on the basis of the bond executed by

the Manager. He submitted that, therefore,

the Manager was bound to appoint protected WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)

teachers in the arising vacancies during 2010

- 2011 and that since he has not done so, the

petitioner's appointment cannot be approved.

He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition

be dismissed.

        5.    I       have     evaluated            the         afore

   submissions        and    have         also   examined          the

materials available on record.

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner was

appointed as a High School Assistant (Maths)

with effect from 01.06.2010, against a

sanctioned post and that she is working

without salary and allowances in such

capacity until now. Her appointment was not

on account of any reason that can be

attributed against her, but the Manger had

appointed her on the fact that vacancy was

available.

7. That said, it is undisputed that WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)

Government had issued G.O(P) No.

199/2011/G.Edn. dated 10.10.2011 and

G.O(P)No.205/2011//G.Edn. Dated 07.10.2011,

based on which the conditions in G.O(P)

No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 have been

modified. Since the petitioner says that the

Manager is ready to obey the conditions

stipulated in G.O(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn. dated

10.10.2011, I cannot see any reason why the

Government should not consider the same,

particularly, when it is averred that the

petitioner has been working from 2010 until

now without any break.

8. Taking note of the afore, I deem it

appropriate to order this writ petition,

directing the Government to reconsider the

matter, after hearing the petitioner, as also

the Manager; and that if the latter is

willing to execute a bond as per the WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)

stipulations in G.O(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn.

dated 10.10.2011 or if he has already

executed such a bond, I am of the firm view

that the Government must consider the grant

of approval to the petitioner.

9. Resultantly, Ext.P7 is set aside;

with a consequential direction to the

Competent Secretary of the Government to

reconsider the proposal for approval of the

appointment of the petitioner as High School

Assistant in Mathematics from 01.06.2010,

after affording an opportunity of being heard

to the petitioner as also the Manager of the

School either physically or through video

conferencing - thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)

8. Needless to say while the afore

exercise is completed, the Secretary of the

Government will take note of the petitioner's

contention that the Manager has already

executed a bond in terms of the afore

mentioned Government Orders, after the

petitioner had been appointed and that he is

willing to obey the conditions stipulated in

G.O(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn. dated 10.10.2011,

subject to his version to be recorded while

he is heard in terms of the afore directions.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C).No.12661 OF 2013(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE MANAGER DATED 30-7-2010

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5-6882/11 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 27-09-

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1993(2) KLT SHORT NOTES 27 DATED 2-8-1993

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/12692/2011/K.DIS DATED 25-1-2012 OF TEH 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.60930/J2/DPI/K.DIS. OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DATED 23-8-2012

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ET3/44735/2012/DPI/K.DIS.

OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DATED 23-8-2012

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.4540/A3/2013/G.EDN. DATED 21-3-2013 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBITP8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A5/2908/14 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 28.05.2014.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.

(c)NO.16337/2009-J DATED 9.7.2010

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.6039/2012-D DATED 18.02.2015.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.

(C)NO.15998/2015-Y DATED 28.07.2015.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE