Ramya B.K vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 14326 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
        THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 13574 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            REMYA B.K.,
            AGED 39 YEARS
            LPSA, NADUVANNUR, SOUTH AMUP SCHOOL, NADUVANNUR P.O.,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 614.

            BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM



RESPONDENTS:

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

    2       DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
            JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

    3       DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573.

    4       ASSISTANT EDUCAITONAL OFFICER,
            OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            PERAMBRA-673 525, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

    5       MANAGER, NADUVANNUR SOUTH AMUP SCHOOL,
            NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 614.



            SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR- SR. G.P




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13574 OF 2021                    2


                                     JUDGMENT

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 1 st respondent to consider and pass final orders on Exts.P7 revision petition dated 18/03/2021 as expeditiously as possible 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 of denial of approval 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 4 th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA from 05.06.2006 onwards in Naduvannur, South AMUP School and 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 initially appointed as

LPSA with effect from 05.06.2006 in the 5th respondent's school and the

appointment was rejected by the AEO stating that there is no sanctioned

post vacant in the school to accommodate the petitioner and the

Manager has not fulfilled the condition laid down in G.O(P)

No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. However, her appointment was

approved with effect from 01.06.2011 onwards under Teacher's Package.

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 initial appointment from

05.06.2006 onwards.

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 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 1st respondent, in accordance with law. In the

light of the binding judgments 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 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 SVP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13574/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05.06.2006 THUS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B-2741/2006 DATED 19.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G3/73962/08/DPI/K.DIS DATED 21/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.60930/J2/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS B-3711/2006 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 DATED 22.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2017 IN WA NO.2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 18.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2021 IN WPC NO.2580/2021 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.