Kerala High Court
Seema S.Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2021
WP(C) NO. 16453 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 16453 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
SEEMA S.PILLAI,
AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O. M R SUKUMARA PILLAI, RESIDING AT JAYANIVAS,
PERIMBADARI (PO) 678 762, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS HIGH SCHOOL
ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCICNE), THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL,
ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM 679 321.
BY ADVS.
LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL
SRI.P.JAHANGEER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAPPADY DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
B2 BLOCK CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505
5 THE MANAGER,
THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT 679 321.
6 THE HEADMASTER,
THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT 679 321.
WP(C) NO. 16453 OF 2020 2
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16453 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was appointed as High School Assistant
(Physical Science) in the Tharakan High School, Angadipuram, an aided
school managed by the 5th respondent on 14.06.2007 in an additional
vacancy. However, her appointment was approved only with effect from
1.6.2011 by including her in the teacher's package. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner is stated to have preferred a revision petition before the 1st
respondent. However, by Exhibit-P8 order, the revision petition filed by the
petitioner was dismissed by the 1st respondent citing the non-execution of
the bond by the manager. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ
petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibit-P8 and for issuance of directions to
the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the
initial date of appointment.
2. Sri.Legith T.Kottakkal, the learned counsel submitted that the
Government had, as per G.O (P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.8.2005,
imposed a ban on the appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff in
additional division vacancies. Later, by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated
12.1.2010, the ban on appointments was lifted subject to certain conditions.
One among the conditions was that the Managers should execute a consent
letter undertaking that in future vacancies, protected teachers equal to the
number of teachers, appointed to the additional division vacancies during the
period 2006-07 to 2009-10, would be appointed. The 5th respondent failed
to execute the bond as required in the Government Order. Thereafter, the
Government issued G.O.(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.06.2011 approving
the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher's
package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioner was
also included in the package and her appointment was regularised with
effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioner, teachers similarly placed as
the petitioner had approached this Court and by various judgments, this
Court had directed the respondents to approve the appointment from the
date of appointment by deeming that the manager has executed the bond.
The learned counsel contends that it is settled by now that even in cases
wherein, bonds have not been executed by the Manager, the Managers
would be deemed to have executed the bond and they would be obliged to
make appointments from the list of protected teachers, equal to the number
of appointments approved during the ban period. The petitioner contends
that the solitary reason stated by the 1st respondent for rejecting the
request for approval from the initial date of appointment is the non-
execution of the bond by the manager and nothing else.
3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that all
appointments in additional division vacancies are liable to be apportioned in
the ratio of 1:1 and if the appointment of the protected teacher is not done
as provided in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, then the Manager
ought to have executed a bond stating that such appointments would be
made in accordance with the provisions of the Government Order. It is
further submitted that some of the Managers have challenged G.O.(P)
No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending
before the Apex Court. It is further submitted that it is for the 1st
respondent to consider whether the petitioners would be entitled to the
benefits of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioner
claims that she was appointed during the period when the ban was in force.
The question as to whether the above Government Order would apply to the
petitioner herein has to be ascertained by the 1st respondent while
considering the revision petition. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Ors. v.
V.S.Suma Devi and Ors. [judgment dated 1.8.2017 in W.A.No.2111/2015],
has held that in the case of non-execution of the bond by the Managers, it
should be deemed that bonds have been executed and the Managers would
be obliged to make an equal number of appointments when the
appointments to additional vacancies made during the ban period are
approved. Insofar as the pendency of the petitions instituted by the
Managers before the Hon'ble Apex Court is concerned, the orders passed
shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Apex Court in
the pending litigation.
5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this
writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
Exhibit P8 cannot be sustained under law as the solitary reason stated for
rejection of the request of the petitioner for approval from the initial date of
appointment is the non-execution of the bond by the Manager.
Resultantly the following directions are issued.
a) Exhibit P8 will stand set aside.
b) The 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter and pass fresh
orders in the revision petition filed by the petitioner with notice to the
petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6. Orders shall be passed, as per
procedure and in accordance with the law, expeditiously, in any event, within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
c) While considering the petition, the Secretary to Government shall
reckon that the Manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and
also that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of
protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during
the ban period. The fact that the petition challenging G.O.(P) No.10/10 filed
by the Managers is pending consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall
not be taken as a ground to deny the benefits to the petitioner. It is made
clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending petitions.
d) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ
petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for
further action.
The writ petition is disposed of.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16453/2020
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14-
06-2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENTQ
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-03-2008 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-06-2008 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01-06-2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED G.O(P) NO 10/10
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 12-01-
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
60930/J2/11/G.EDN DATED 25-10-2011 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 20-12-2012 IN
WPC 30720 OF 2012
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-04-2013 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-07-2017 IN
WA 2290 OF 2015
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
100/J2/2017/GEN.ED DATED 11-09-2018
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-05-2019 IN
WPC 40491 OF 2018
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
