Kerala High Court
Manju Markose vs The State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 24 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.3095 OF 2015(J)
PETITIONER:
MANJU MARKOSE, W/O.ELDHO P.VARGHESE,
AGED 33 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
ASSISTANT, JAYAKERALAM HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, PULLUVAZHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.
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 PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682030.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
5 THE MANAGER, JAYAKERALAM HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL,PULLUVAZHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.
BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 3095/15 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of March 2021
The petitioner, who is stated to be working as an Upper
Primary School Assistant in 'Jayakeralam Higher Secondary School',
Pulluvazhi, Ernakulam, has approached this Court impugning Exhibit
P8 order of the Government, as per which, the statutory Revision filed
by her seeking approval of appointment from 02.06.2008 to
31.05.2001 has been rejected solely for the reason that the Manager
of the School has not executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P)No.
10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.
2. The petitioner says that she was appointed on 02.06.2008
in an additional division vacancy, but that said post was not
sanctioned during the academic year 2008-09, solely on account of
the ban of appointments ordered by the Government through G.O.(P)
No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.08.2005. She says that, subsequently,
this ban was lifted by the Government through G.O.(P)No.
10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 on condition that the Manager shall
execute a bond to the effect that he will appoint equal number of
protected teachers against the vacancies arising after 01.06.2010,
with an equal number of teachers appointed from 2006-07 to 2009-10.
3. The petitioner says that as is evident from Exhibit P8,
Government had rejected her approval solely on the ground that the
Manager did not execute the bond and asserts that this is untenable
because this Court has, through a catena of judgments, already
declared that while taking such a decision, the competent authority of
the Government ought to have deemed that the Manager had
executed a bond in terms of the aforementioned Government Order.
The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exhibit P8 be set aside and the
competent educational authority be directed to grant her approval
from 02.06.2008 to 31.05.2011, within a time frame to be fixed by this
Court.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that
the afore submissions of the petitioner are not valid because, as has
been declared by this Court in several judgments, unless the Manager
executes a bond in terms of G.O.(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated
12.01.2010, its benefits could not have been granted to the teachers
appointed by him. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
5. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the submissions
of the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore because, as rightly
stated by the petitioner, this Court has declared in several cases that
even where a Manager has not executed a bond in terms of the
aforementioned Government Order, it should be deemed by the
authorities that he has done so, particularly if there are no reasons
stated in not having executed the bond.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner must
also be given the same benefit and for such purpose, Exhibit P8 be
struck down.
7. In the afore circumstances, I set aside Exhibit P8, with a
consequential direction to the competent authority of the Government
to re-consider the Revision filed by the petitioner, referred to in the
said order, after affording her and the Manager of the School an
opportunity of being heard - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as
expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed by
the competent Secretary of the Government, he 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.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1-
3522/2008/K.DIS. DATED 26.8.2008 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER AND
APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 2.6.2008
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/6978/(3)/10/
K.DIS. DATED 30.11.2010 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(C)NO.16337/2009 DATED 9.7.2010
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.60930/J2/11/
G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 9.5.2014
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.
13252/2014-H DATED 27.05.2014
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.5220/2014/
G.EDN. DATED 24.11.2014 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2290 OF
2015 DATED 25-07-2017.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 2091/2018
DATED 28-06-2019.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT. R1(a) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.317/05/G.EDN. DATED 17.08.2005
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
