Kerala High Court
Lakshmi T vs The State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2021
WP(C) NO. 26554 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 26554 OF 2021
PETITIONERS :
LAKSHMI T.,
AGED 50 YEARS
JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER,
W/O. ASOKAN,
AUP SCHOOL, MANIPURAM, KODUVALLY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 572.
BY ADV R.K.MURALIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 572.
4 THE MANAGER,
AUP SCHOOL, MANIPURAM, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT 673 572.
WP(C) NO. 26554 OF 2021 2
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26554 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was appointed as Junior Hindi Teacher
with effect from 04.06.2007 in a retirement vacancy in the AUP School,
Manipuram. She states that the appointment of the petitioner was approved
only with effect from 01.06.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is with
regard to the non-grant of approval from the initial date of appointment.
2. It is contended by the petitioner 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 12.01.2010, 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 4th 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, similarly
placed teachers 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 had executed the bond.
The petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the
petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent. It is
in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a
direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision
petition.
3. Sri.R.K. Muralidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted 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.
4. 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 submitted that if the limited request is only to
consider the revision petition, there cannot be any impediment.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioner
was appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to G.O.(P)
No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, was in force. The appointment of the
petitioner was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 on the ground that
there was a ban on appointments at the time of her initial appointment and
that the Manager had failed to execute the bond in terms of G.O.
(P)No.10/10. 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.
6. 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 at
the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:
a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up consider and pass
orders on Exhibit P5 revision petition filed by the
petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 4th
respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law
laid down by this Court in Suma Devi (supra). Orders
shall be passed 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 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.
c) 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
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26554/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
04.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR
THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2007-2008 ISSUED BY THE
AEO, THAMARASSERY DATED 16.10.2007.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR
THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-2010 ISSUED BY THE
AEO, KODUVAL DATED 01.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS.
4215/2011/C DATED 19.01.2012 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED
02.09.2021.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL
