Kerala High Court
Preetha Kumari.P vs The State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 6593 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
PREETHA KUMARI.P
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.REGHUNATHAKURUP,
SAISIVAM, CHUNAKKARA NADUVIL,
CHUNAKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA-690 534.
BY ADVS.
SHIRAZ ABDULLA
SRI.K.ABDUL NASSAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-685 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-685 014.
W.P.(C).No.6593/2020
2
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 101.
5 THE MANAGER
C.B.M. HIGH SCHOOL, P O
NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA-680 504.
BY SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.6593/2020
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the
respondents 1 and 2 to recognise and regularise the service of the petitioner
as UPSA from 05/06/2006 and for directing the said respondents to allow
the pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period from 05/06/2006 to
31/05/2007 and for consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as probationary
teacher on a pay of ₹ 6680/- per mensem and was posted as UPSA on
05/06/2006 in the CBM High School, Nooranadu in an additional division
vacancy as per Exhibit P1 order. It is contended that by Exhibit P2 letter, the
5th respondent was informed by the 4th respondent that the appointment of
the petitioner has been rejected due to non sanctioning of posts. Later,
Exhibit P3 representation was submitted by the 5th respondent seeking
consideration of the proposal for appointment and to regularise the same
with effect from 05/06/2006 onwards. However, by Exhibit P4 order, the
request was rejected in view of the economic ban imposed by order dated
17/8/2005. The petitioner contends that the 5th respondent thereafter
submitted Exhibit P5 representation before the Government. It is contended
that thereafter the 5th respondent has issued Exhibit P6 appointment order
W.P.(C).No.6593/2020
on 01/06/2007 appointing the petitioner as a probationary teacher and she
was posted as UPSA in the same school with effect from 01/06/2007
onwards. While working as aforesaid, the fifth respondent issued Exhibit P8
appointment order dated 11.6.2018 appointing the petitioner as UPSA under
its management for the period from 11.06.2018 to 10.06.2023 and she has
been continuing as such. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner
has approached this Court seeking regularisation of the services of the
petitioner as UPSA teacher with effect from 05.06.2006 and for incidental
directions.
3. Sri Shiraz Abdulla M.S, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that while rejecting the request by Exhibit P4 order, the
2nd respondent relied on the economic ban imposed by the Government. It
is contended 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
W.P.(C).No.6593/2020
the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10,
would be appointed. 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. 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
has executed the bond. The petitioner contends that relying on the law laid
down by this Court, it is only just and proper that the respondents consider
the request made by the petitioner and take a decision.
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.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ
petitioner was appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to
W.P.(C).No.6593/2020
G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, was in force. 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.
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 by
issuing the following directions:
a) The petitioner shall approach the 1st respondent and file a
representation detailing his grievances within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. If such
a representation is filed, the 1st respondent shall consider the
same and pass orders with notice to the petitioner as well as the
5th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid
down by this Court in Suma Devi (supra). A decision shall be taken
W.P.(C).No.6593/2020
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 representation, the Secretary to
Government shall bear in mind 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. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st
respondent shall be subject to the final orders passed by the Apex
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
W.P.(C).No.6593/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6593/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REJECTION OF THE
APPOINTMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT
REQUEST.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REJECTION OF THE
APPOINTMENT.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER COST.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DIST,
EDUCATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER.
