V.S.Bindhu vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9032 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.2678 OF 2021(H)


PETITIONER:

               V.S.BINDHU
               AGED 46 YEARS
               WIFE OF KAREPARAMBIL SURESH,
               UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KOORIKUZHI A M UPPER
               PRIMARY SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
               680681.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
               SRI.M.SAJJAD

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
               EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
               JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

      3        THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680567.

      4        THE MANAGER
               KOORIKUZHI A M UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALAM,
               THRISSUR-680681.

      5        THE HEADMISTRESS
               KOORIKUZHI A M UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALAM,
               THRISSUR-680681.


OTHER PRESENT:

               T RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2678 OF 2021(H)

                                    2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of March 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P3 and P4 and quash the originals of the same to the extend it refuse to approve the appointment from the initial date by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to grant approval of Exhibits P1 and P2 from the initial date of appointment forthwith in the light of Exhibit P6 judgment."

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 the petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the

4th respondent school for various periods from 2003

onwards. Thereafter, against a retirement vacancy, the

petitioner was reappointed on 09.06.2008. The said WP(C).No.2678 OF 2021(H)

appointment was not approved. Thereafter, she was

appointed against an anticipated additional division vacancy

with effect from 01.06.2009, but the appointment was

approved only from 01.06.2011. The petitioner had

approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.18174/2013 seeking

approval of the appointment w.e.f 09.06.2008. This Court, by

Ext.P5 judgment, had directed the consideration of revision

petition preferred by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

no orders have been passed on the revision petition

submitted by the petitioner in spite of the directions issued

by this Court. It is submitted that in respect of identically

situated teachers in aided schools, this Court has directed

the approval of the appointment from the initial date of

appointment deeming that the Managers have executed

bonds in terms of G.O.(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.

However, it is submitted that the petitioner's appointment

from the initial date of appointment is remaining

unapproved, even though directions have been issued to the WP(C).No.2678 OF 2021(H)

Government to consider the same.

5. The learned Government Pleader submits that in

spite of repeated postings, no instructions are forthcoming

as to whether Ext.P5 directions have been complied with

and whether orders have been passed.

5. In the above factual situations, I am of the opinion

that it is for the Government to take an appropriate decision

on the revision petition submitted by the petitioner, if orders

have not been passed thereon as directed in Ext.P5. The 1 st

respondent is, therefore, directed to take a decision on the

issue of approval of appointment of the petitioner w.e.f

09.06.2008 as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, without delay, at

any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, if no orders have been passed on the

revision petition as directed in Ext.P5. The orders shall be

passed after hearing the petitioner as well as the Manager

through any appropriate means including video

conferencing. In the case petitioner's appointment in the

additional division vacancy is being objected to on the WP(C).No.2678 OF 2021(H)

ground that the Manager has not submitted a bond, it shall

be deemed that the Manager has furnished such a bond and

the issue can be considered by the Government

appropriately.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Bng/18.03.2021 WP(C).No.2678 OF 2021(H)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09.06.2008.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2009.

EXHIBIT P3         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
                   C4939/2011/K.DIS DATED 24.12.2011
                   ISSUED BY THE AEO, VALAPPAD.

EXHIBIT P4         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
                   F2/57684/2012/DPI/K.DIS DATED
                   20.03.2013 OF DPI.

EXHIBIT P5         TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
                   18174/2013 DATED 22.07.2013.

EXHIBIT P6         TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
                   20948/2020 DATED 28/10/2020.