Kerala High Court
Sreepathi.E vs The State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
PETITIONERS :-
1 SREEPATHI.E., AGED 32 YEARS
UPSA, KOTTAYAM RAJA HIGH SCHOOL, PATHIRIYAD,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 DHANYA N.C,
UPSA, KOTTAYAM RAJA HIGH SCHOOL,
PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 N.P. NIPIN,
UPSA, KOTTAYAM RAJA HIGH SCHOOL, PATHIRIYAD,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KANNUR-670 001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
THALASSERY-670 101.
5 THE MANAGER,
KOTTAYAM RAJA HIGH SCHOOL, PATHIRIYAD,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 2 :-
6 THE HEAD MASTER,
KOTTAYAM RAJA HIGH SCHOOL, PATHIRIYAD,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP
SRI.JIJI THOMAS
SMT.SMITHA MATHEW
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 3 :-
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P14 dated
30/08/2019 issued by the 1st respondent and to the extent
denial of approval in Exts.P1, P2 and P3 as it is illegal and
unjustifiable.
ii) 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 1st petitioner as UPSA from 4/6/2008 to
31/5/2011 and from 1-6-2009 to 31/5/2011 to the 2 nd petitioner
as UPSA and from 3/6/2008 to 31/5/2011 to the 3 rd petitioner
as UPSA and to disburse all consequential monetary benefits
due to them forthwith.
iii) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to get approval to
their respective posts in the light of Exts.P9, P15 and P16
judgments."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners are teachers working
in the 5th respondent's school. The petitioners were appointed by
Exts.P1, P2 and P3 appointment orders from 4.6.2008, 1.6.2009
and 3.6.2008 respectively. The appointments were rejected on the
ground that the petitioners had been appointed against newly
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
sanctioned posts during the period of ban on appointments and
that the Manager had not executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P)
No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 agreeing to reserve equal
number of vacancies for appointment of protected teachers. It was
also contended that the appointments of the teachers in whose
vacancies the petitioners had been appointed had not been duly
approved. It is submitted that on the basis of Exts.P9, P15 and P16
judgments, the appointments of all the senior teachers in the same
school have been approved. The said judgments have also
specifically directed the Government to deem that the Manager has
executed the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated
12.1.2010. It is, therefore, contended that the reasons stated in
Ext.P14 are no longer relevant and that the petitioners are also
entitled to appointment of their approval for the periods from their
initial date of appointment till 31.5.2011 deeming that the
Manager has executed the necessary bond in terms of the
Government Orders.
4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 4 th
respondent. It is stated that the petitioners were appointed in
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
additional division vacancies during 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is
submitted that the Manager had not executed the bond as
required. It is further submitted that the appointment of the
teachers in whose vacancies the petitioners had been
accommodated had also not been approved. It is contended that
since there is no specific direction to deem that the bond had been
executed and since the Manager had not executed such bond, the
Government could only reject the claim raised by the petitioners.
5. The 5th respondent has placed a counter affidavit on
record stating that the provision in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated
12.1.2010 providing that equal number of posts have been
earmarked for protected teachers has been challenged by the
Manager and that there is an interim stay in the SLP pending
before the Apex Court.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear
from Exts.P15 and P16 judgments that this Court has directed the
approval of appointment of K.Pradeepan, G.Suma and
K.P.Ramachandran, HSAs in the school deeming that the bond had
been duly executed by the Manager. The learned counsel for the
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
petitioners submits that the said appointments have already been
approved on the basis of the directions of this Court. If that be so,
there is no further impediment to the approval of the appointments
of the petitioners except the fact that the Manager has not
executed the bond. In several cases including in Exts.P15 and P16
judgments this Court had directed the approval of appointments
made during the ban period deeming that the bond, as provided in
G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, has been executed by
the Manager. This has been done even in cases where the issue is
pending before the Apex Court, of course, subject to the decision of
the Apex Court.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that
the rejection of approval of appointment of the petitioners on the
ground that the Manager had not executed the bond is not
sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside. There will be a
direction to the Government to reconsider the issue deeming that
the bond has been executed by the Manager in terms of G.O.(P)
No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. The contention of the
petitioners that the appointments of the teachers in whose
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
vacancies they were appointed stand approved shall also be
considered by the Government while passing orders. Appropriate
orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date
of receipt a copy of this judgment. The consequential benefits shall
also be disbursed within a period of three months thereafter.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Jvt/2.7.2021
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26125/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
4.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 3.6.2008
ISSUED BY TH4E 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO K.DIS/B5/5625/08 DATED
30.5.2009
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2011 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.6.2011 SUBMITTED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EM4/7078/2011/DPI/KI.DS
DATED 7.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 90930/J2/G.EDN DATED
25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.2017 IN WA
NO 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
11.7.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
29.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
22.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2018 IN WPC
NO 35004/2018 PASSE4D BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO 3463/2019/G.EDN
DATED 30.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.4.2019 IN WPC
NO 11867/19 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2019 IN WPC
NO 18109/19 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :-
EXHIBIT R5(a) A COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THE APEX COURT DIARY
NO.28178/2019 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)
NO 23723/2019 IN CA NO 7698/2019 DATED 27.9.2019
EXHIBIT R5(b) STATUS OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS IN CA NO
7698/2019 DATED 27.9.2019(MANAGER, SOUMYATHA
MEMORIAL UP SCHOOL V/S. THE STATE OF KERALA
