Kerala High Court
Blessy Mathew vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 18 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.39204 OF 2016(A)
PETITIONER:
BLESSY MATHEW, WIFE OF SHOBY VARGHESE,
AGED 41 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
(ENGLISH) CHALDEAN SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR AT AYYANTHOLE-680 003.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR 680 020.
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CHALDEAN SYRIAN
CHURCH SCHOOLS, OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF
CENTRAL TRUSTEE, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001.
R1 TO R4 BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR.GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 39204/16 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of March 2021
The petitioner, who claims to have been appointed as an
Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in 'Chaldean Syrian Higher
Secondary School', Thrissur, managed by the fifth respondent, has
approached this Court impugning Exhibits P2, P6, P7, P13 and P15
orders, as per which, approval of her appointment from 05.06.2006
until 01.06.2008 has been declined on the ground that there was no
post to accommodate her during the said period and also because the
Manager of the School had not executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P)
No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.
2. The petitioner says that it has been now well settled,
through a catena of judgments of this Court, that the educational
authorities are bound to deem that the Manager had executed a bond
in terms of the afore Government Order, but that this has not been
done, while the impugned orders have been issued. She further points
out that the allegation that there was no post to accommodate her is
belied by Exhibit P19 staff fixation order, wherein, it is clearly shown
that an additional division and post were eligible, but not sanctioned
on account of the ban of appointments ordered by the Government
through G.O.(P)No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 15.08.2005 for the
academic year 2006-07. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the
impugned orders be set aside and the competent authorities be
directed to grant her approval with effect from 05.06.2006, deeming
that the Manager had executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P)No.
10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.
3. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that, as has been stated in Exhibit P15, the petitioner's
approval from 05.06.2006 till 01.06.2008 has been declined only
because there was no vacancy to accommodate her and because the
Manager had not executed a bond as per the aforementioned
Government Order. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioner
cannot now stake claim for approval from the afore date, particularly
because, she has already been granted approval with effect from
01.l06.2008, when she was shifted to another post of UPSA.
4. I have evaluated the afore submissions and have also
examined the materials available on record.
5. When one goes through Exhibit P15, it is without doubt
that the staff fixation order for year 2006-07 has been allowed finding
that an additional division and post are eligible, but cannot be
granted on account of G.O.(P)No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 15.08.2005,
through which there was a general ban of appointments ordered by
the Government at the relevant time. It is common knowledge that
this ban was lifted by the Government through G.O.(P)No.
10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, whereby, the Manager was directed
to execute a bond undertaking that protected teachers will be
appointed in the same ratio of other teachers during the relevant
period. However, Exhibit P15 records that since the Manager has not
executed a bond in terms of the aforementioned Government Order,
the additional division and post continued to be unavailable to the
School, consequently, the petitioner's appointment in the year 2006
was not approved.
6. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with Exhibit P15 order
because, as rightly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
this Court has already settled it without any requirement for
restatement that, while considering the claims akin to that of the
petitioner, the competent educational authorities must deem that the
Manager had executed a bond in terms of the aforementioned
Government Order. If this has been done, obviously, the additional
division and post mentioned in Exhibit P15 may have become
available to the school, thus entitling the petitioner to approval with
effect from 2006.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set
aside Exhibit P15, with a consequential direction to the Government
to reconsider the case of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity
of being heard to her as also the Manager of the School - either
physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an
appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as possible, but not
later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, the
competent Secretary of the Government will be at full liberty to deem
that the Manager has executed a bond, subject to his version, in
terms of G.O.(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER
DATED 29/5/2006.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 6/10/2006.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 18/10/2006.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/05/2007
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER
DATED 04/07/2007
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 04/12/2007.
EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/05/2009
EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE
MANAGER DATED 22/08/2007
EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE
MANAGER DATED 28/05/2008
EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED
08.08.2008
EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER
DATED 21/08/2008 BEFORE THE DIST. EDL.
OFFICER
EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 22/11/2013
EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 26/03/2014
EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 01/08/2016
EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt)NO.3474/2016/
G.EDN. DATED 20/10/2016 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
16337/2009-J DATED 09/07/2010
EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
6039/2012 DATED 18/02/2015
EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15998/
2015-Y DATED 28/07/2015
EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2006-
2007 DATED 16/09/2006
EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2007-
2008 DATED 05/11/2007.
EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2008-
2009 DATED 19/02/2009.
EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.
2290/2015 DATED 25/07/2017
EXT.P23 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.
2091/2018 DATED 28/06/2018
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
