Kerala High Court
Jisha M vs State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2021
WP(C) NO. 26313 OF 2021 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. 26313 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 JISHA M.,
AGED 43 YEARS
L.P.S.A. PERUMANNA ALP SCHOOL, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE
673 026.
2 ARUN KUMAR K.P.,
AGED 31 YEARS
L.P.S.A. PERUMANNA ALP SCHOOL, PERUMANNA KOZHIKODE
673 026.
BY ADVS.
POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
K.N.KUMARASWAMY SARMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE-673 004.
4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE RURAL, PUTHIYARA POST, KOZHIKODE-673 004.
5 MANAGER,
PERUMANNA ALP SCHOOL, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
673 026.
WP(C) NO. 26313 OF 2021 2
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
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. 26313 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are teachers working as LPSAs in Perumanna AMLP
School with effect from 03.06.2008 and 1.06.2010 respectively. Their
appointments were approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 by including
them in the teacher's package. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are stated to
have preferred Exts.P9 and P10 revision petitions before the 1st respondent.
Their prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to
consider the revision petitions.
2. Sri.P.P.Abdul Kareem, 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 petitioners
were also included in the package and their appointment was regularised
with effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioners, teachers similarly
placed as the petitioners 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.
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 petitioners
claim that they were appointed during the period when the ban was in force.
The question as to whether the above Government Order would apply to the
petitioners herein has to be ascertained by the 1st respondent while
considering the revision petitions. 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 this writ petition can be disposed of by
issuing the following directions:
a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up Exhibits P9 and
P10 revision petitions submitted by the petitioners with
notice to them and the 5th respondent and take a
decision, 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.
b) While considering the petition, the Secretary to Government
shall consider whether G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated
12.1.2010 would apply and if it applies, the 1st
respondent shall be free to reckon that the Managers
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 petitioners. 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.
c) It would be open to the petitioners 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
IAP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26313/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
03/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
TO THE IST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. D.DIS/C/4716/11
DATED 03/01/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. K.DIS. C-1622/2010
DATED 13/07/2011 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 60930/J2/G.EDN.
DATED 25/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26/7/2017 IN
W.A. NO. 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE
COURT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.
100/J2/2017/G.EDN. DATED 11/9/2018 ISSUED
BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 4/2021/G.EDN.
DATED 06/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
30/10/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE IST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
30/10/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 06/10/2021 IN
WPC NO. 21167/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
