Kerala High Court
Fayissa N.V vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.2001 OF 2021(A)
PETITIONER:
FAYISSA N.V
AGED 33 YEARS
L.P.S.A, U.A.H.M.L.P. SCHOOL, VALIYAD, KODUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 504.
BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM-676 505.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM-679 576.
5 THE MANAGER
U.A.H.M.L.P SCHOOL, VALIYAD, KODUR P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-676 504.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP NISHA BOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2001 OF 2021(A)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th 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
Ext.P7 revision petition dated 12.01.2021 as
expeditiously with deeming that the Manager has
executed the bond.
ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ or order quashing Exts.P2 and P3 and to the
extent denial of approval from the date of
appointment in Ext.P1 as it is illegal and
unjustifiable.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction directing the
4th respondent to approve the appointment of the
petitioner as L.P.S.A from 01/06/2009 onwards
U.A.H.M.L.P.S, Valiyad and to direct to disburse all
consequential monetary benefits to her forthwith.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed
as L.P.S.A from 01.06.2009 onwards in the 5 th respondent's
school and the appointment was rejected by the 4 th
WP(C).No.2001 OF 2021(A)
respondent on the ground that there is no additional division
post has been sanctioned due to the economic ban as per
GO(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn dated 17.08.2005 by Ext.P2 order.
As against Ext.P2, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before
the 3rd respondent and the said appeal was rejected on the
ground that the 5th respondent has not executed the bond in
terms of G.O(P) 10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
Ext.P7 revision petition has been submitted by the petitioner
before the Government seeking approval of her
appointment. It is submitted 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 petitioner, who has been appointed in
a newly created post, would also be liable to have her
appointment approved with effect from the date of first
appointment.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that all
appointments in additional division vacancies are liable to
WP(C).No.2001 OF 2021(A)
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.
5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am
of the opinion that Ext.P7 revision petition preferred by the
petitioner is liable to be considered by the 1 st 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
WP(C).No.2001 OF 2021(A)
passed by the Supreme Court in the pending matters.
6. In the above view of the matter, there will be a
direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass
orders on Ext.P7 revision 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 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
Bng/28.01.2021
WP(C).No.2001 OF 2021(A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 1.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.K.DIS/C/3065/2010 DATED 24.11.2010
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.K.DIS./B1/13090/2010 DATED 24.6.2011
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.60930/J2/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF
FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS.C 3632/2009
DATED 5.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.7.2017 IN W.A.NO.2592/2015 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
DATED 12.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
