Princy Poulose vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2567 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.1701 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONERS :-

      1     PRINCY POULOSE, AGED 40 YEARS,
            H.S.A.(P.S.), M.A.H.S., KODANAD,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544.

      2     SARITHA P.,
            UPSA, M.A.H.S., KODANAD,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544.

            BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM

RESPONDENTS :-

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

      2     DIRECTOR OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

      3     DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
            OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
            ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

      4     DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
            OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.

      5     MANAGER
            M.A.H.S., KODANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544.

            BY SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1701 OF 2021(K)

                                       -: 2 :-


                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of January 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass final orders on Exts.P9 & P10 revision petitions as expeditiously as possible in the light of Ext.P8 judgment.

ii) To issue a writ of certiorari to set aside denial of approval in Exts.P2, P4 as they are illegal and unjustifiable.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 4 th respondent to approve the appointment of the 1 st petitioner as HSA (PS) from 02/06/2008 to 31/05/2011, from 02/08/2008 to 31/05/2011 as UPSA of the 2nd petitioner and to disburse all consequential monetary benefits due to them forthwith.

iv) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to get approval to their respective posts in the light of Ext.P8 judgment."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted that the 1 st petitioner was appointed UPSA

on 1.6.2007 in the 5th respondent's school and the management and

the appointment was duly approved. On 2.6.2008, in an additional

division vacancy, the 1st petitioner was appointed as HSA (Physical

Science). On the ground that the approval for appointment of

Smt.Deepa Varghese, who had worked in the school for the year WP(C).No.1701 OF 2021(K)

2006-2007 had not been approved, the 1 st petitioner's appointment

was also not approved. The 2nd petitioner was appointed in the

vacancy of UPSA in the promotion vacancy of the 1 st petitioner. The

said appointment has also not been approved. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that Exts.P9 and P10 revision

petitions have been submitted by the petitioners before the

Government seeking approval of their appointments. It is submitted

that the 1st petitioner's appointment is under Rule 43, Chapter XIV A,

KER. It is contended that the said appointment is liable to be

approved and the only reason stated for non-approval of the same is

that the Manager had not submitted a bond in terms of G.O(P)

10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. It is submitted that the 2 nd petitioner

who has been appointed in a resultant promotion vacancy would also

be liable to have her appointment approved with effect from the date

of first appointment. It is submitted that the appointment of the

petitioners has been approved only with effect from 1.6.2011.

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 WP(C).No.1701 OF 2021(K)

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.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the

opinion that Exts.P9 and P10 revision petitions preferred by the

petitioners are liable to be considered by the 1st respondent, in

accordance with law. In the light of the binding judgments of the

Division 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.

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

the respondents to consider Exts.P9 and P10 revision petitions

together, after hearing the parties 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 WP(C).No.1701 OF 2021(K)

including through video conferencing. In case the petitioners are

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

Jvt/22.1.2021 WP(C).No.1701 OF 2021(K)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2007 THUS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 02.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/3577/06/K.DIS. DATED 23.02.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 02.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/312/2008/K.DIS. DATED 19.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 02.01.2009 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2015 IN WP(C) NO.16555/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 08.01.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 15.01.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE