Kerala High Court

P.J. John vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021

WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          P.J. JOHN.,
          AGED 51 YEARS,
          HST HINDI, ST. MICHAEL'S HIGH SCHOOL, KAVIL,
          PATTANAKAD, ALAPPUZHA 688 531.

          BY ADVS.
          AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
          K.S.ROCKEY
          TONY AUGUSTINE
          GEORGE RENOY



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
          EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

    2     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 524.

    3     THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
          ARCHDIOCESAN CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE
          OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY, RENEWAL CENTRE, KALOOR,
          ERNAKULAM 682 017.
 WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021           2

          SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021                      3



                                    JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order, by which the 1st respondent has

rejected the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as HST from the date of

appointment on the ground that the Manager had not executed the bond as

stipulated in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 and also due to the

pendency of the matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is

before this Court with this writ petition.

2. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent appointed the

petitioner on 1.6.2009 in an additional division vacancy as per Ext.P1 order.

Later, the 2nd respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect

from 1.6.2011 onwards by including him in the Teachers Package. He contends

that a revision petition was preferred seeking approval from the date of

appointment onwards which stands rejected by Ext.P4 order.

3. The petitioner contends 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 3rd 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 his appointment was regularised with effect from

1.6.2011. According to the petitioner, teachers similarly placed as he 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. In the light of the law laid

down by this Court, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.

19223/2020 seeking to approve his appointment. This Court by Exhibit P3

judgment directed the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition and

pursuant to the same, Ext.P4 order was passed. It is in the afore circumstances

that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P4 and also for a

direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner

with effect from 1.6.2009 onwards deeming that the Manager has executed the

bond.

4. Sri. Augustine Joseph, 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. The learned counsel points out that the law laid down by this

Court has not been taken note of while passing Ext.P4 order.

5. 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.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced.

7. 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 his 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. A mere perusal of Ext.P4

order passed by the 1st respondent would reveal that the non-execution of the

bond and the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were

the reasons stated for denying the approval. I am of the view that the stand

taken by the respondents cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by

this Court. Insofar as the pendency of the petitions instituted by the Managers

before the Hon'ble Apex Court is concerned, the orders passed by this Court shall

be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Apex Court in the

pending litigation.

8. 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) Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent will stand set aside.

b) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the revision petition

filed by the petitioner and pass orders with notice to the

petitioner as well as the 3rd 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.

c) While considering the revision petition, 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.