Akhila M vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8494 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.5883 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER:

                AKHILA M.
                AGED 30 YEARS
                LPSA, AM LP SCHOOL, KACHINIKKAD, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O.,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 507

                BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
                EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014

      2         ASSISTANT EDUCATINAL OFFICER,
                MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 324

      3         MANAGER,
                AM LP SCHOOL, KACHINIKKAD, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O.,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 507


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5985/2021(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5883 OF 2021

                                  2



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of March 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari; or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Exhibit P-6 order passed by the 1 st respondent.

(ii) to issue a Writ of Certiorari; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Exhibit P-1 Order to the extent it declines approval of appointment of the petitioner for the period from 14/06/2020 to 31/05/2011.

(iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA, with effect from 14/06/2010 onwards.

(iv) to issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P-5 revision filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that though this Court had directed the consideration of the WP(C).No.5883 OF 2021

request made by the petitioner for approval of appointment with

effect from the initial date of appointment, the said request is

now been rejected by Ext.P6 order on the sole ground that the

Manager has not submitted a bond in terms of G.O.(P)

No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has repeatedly

directed the approval of appointments made during the ban

period, deeming that the Manager had submitted the bond in

accordance with the provisions of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn.

dated 12.01.2010.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that it was

due to the fact that there was no specific direction to the

Government to consider the request for approval, deeming that

the Manager has submitted the bond that orders have been

passed by the Government in Ext.P6. It is, therefore, submitted

that the matter will be reconsidered by the Government if such a

direction is issued by this Court.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and in

view of the repeated declaration by this Court that the WP(C).No.5883 OF 2021

appointments made during the ban period are liable to be

approved, deeming that a bond has been submitted by the

respective Managers, I am of the opinion that the same course of

action is liable to be adopted in the instant case as well.

Ext.P6 is, therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to

the 1st respondent to take up the request of the petitioner for

approval of appointment from the initial date of appointment

deeming that the Manager has submitted a bond as required

under G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. Appropriate

orders shall be passed by the 1 st respondent as directed above,

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment. In case, the appointment is approved, the

resultant benefits shall also be released within a period of three

months thereafter.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ssa WP(C).No.5883 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5883/2021 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.2010

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34935/16 DATED 28.6.2017

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.1658/2016

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4477/2017/G.EDN DATED 21.11.2017

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1.2.2020

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.1794/2021/G.EDN DATED 19.2.2021 WP(C).No.5883 OF 2021