Kerala High Court
Muhammed Haries P.P vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 17859 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17859 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED HARIES P.P.,
AGED 45 YEARS,
OFFICE ATANDANT, SIR SYED HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KARIMBAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670
141.
BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR-
670 001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICCT-670 141.
5 MANAGER,
SIR SYED HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARIMBAM P.O.,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN-670 141
6 HEAD MASTER,
SIR SYED HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARIMBAM P.O,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN-670 141.
WP(C) NO. 17859 OF 2021 2
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17859 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he was appointed as FTCM in the Sir Syed
Higher Secondary School, an aided school, under the management of the 5th
respondent from 1.8.2005 onwards in a newly created post as per Ext.P1
order. However, his appointment was rejected by the 4th respondent by
Ext.P2 order on the ground that the post was one that had to be filled up with
a protected hand. The said order was confirmed by the 3rd respondent. He
contends that he was promoted as a Peon from 5.10.2006 in a newly created
post by the 5th respondent as per Ext.P3 order. The said appointment was
turned down by the 4th respondent which order was confirmed by the 3rd
respondent by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner states that while the approval was
pending consideration, the Government issued G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated
12.1.2010 lifting the economic ban on additional division vacancies. The post
in which the petitioner was appointed was also sanctioned by virtue of the
revised staff fixation. Later by the introduction of the Teachers package, the
2nd respondent directed the 4th respondent to grant approval to the petitioner
from 1.6.2011 onwards. Later, Ext.P7 order was issued granting sanction to
approve the appointments of the teaching/non-teaching staff of the school
with effect from 2.2.2006. The petitioner contends that seeking approval for
the period prior to 1.6.2011, the petitioner preferred Ext.P8 revision petition.
Pursuant to orders issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, Ext.P10 order was
passed by the 1st respondent holding that the appointment of the petitioner
from 5.10.2006 can be approved by the 4th respondent after ensuring that the
conditions of order dated 1.2.2006 are duly complied with. However, by
Ext.P13 order, the 4th respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on the
ground that the claim cannot be accepted due to the non-execution of bond by
the Manager. The petitioner states that teachers similarly placed as the
petitioner had approached this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by
Ext.P14 judgment allowed the grant of approval by holding that the Managers
are deemed to have executed the bond. The petitioner states that Ext.P15
and P16 orders have been passed by the 4th respondent in favour of persons
similarly placed as the petitioner. It is in the afore circumstances that the
petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash Exts.P2, P4,
P5, P10 and P13 orders and to extent of denial of approval in Ext.P3 as
it is illegal and unjustifiable.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction directing the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of
the petitioner as Office Attendant from 05.10.2006 to 31.05.2011 and
to disburse all consequential monetary benefits due to him forthwith.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhibit-P8 revision
petition with deeming provision and in the light of Nadeera v.State of
Kerala as expeditiously as possible.
iv) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval to his post in the
light of Ext.P14 judgment and Exts.P15 & P16."
2. Sri.P.P.Abdul Kareem, 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 hands, 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.P10 and P13 orders. Though various other reliefs are claimed, when the
matter came up for admission, the learned counsel submitted that in view of
the law laid down by this Court, there was no justification on the part of the
respondents in limiting the grant of approval from 1.6.2011 onwards. He
submits that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ext.P14 judgment
and Exts.P15 and P16, the revision petition filed by him is liable to be
reconsidered.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who submitted that
no interference is warranted. In view of the nature of the order that I
propose to pass, notice to the party respondents is dispensed with.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced.
5. I find that persons similarly placed as the petitioner had
approached this Court and by Ext.P14 judgment, directions were issued to
approve by deeming that the Managers had executed the bond as stipulated
in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. It also appears that Ext.P15
and P16 orders have been issued by the 4th respondent granting approval as
per the deeming provision. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that
the revision petition filed by the petitioner requires reconsideration at the
hands of the 1st respondent.
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) Ext.P10 and P13 orders will stand set aside.
b) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P8 revision
petition filed by the petitioner 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
Ext.P14 judgment. 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) 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
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17859/2021
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
1.8.2005 THUS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
B4/9104/2006/K.DIS DATED 16.4.2007 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
5.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B4/9339/07/K.DIS
DATED 31.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
EM3/82315/07/DPI/D.DIS. DATED 21.4.2008
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION
ORDER NO B4/3264/10/K.DIS. DATED 12.1.2011
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO
B1/925/15/K.DIS. DATED 13.4.2015 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
11.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.9.2019
IN WPC NO 25683/2019 ISSUED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 3257 /
2020/G.END DATED 10.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
18.9.2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B4/10419/15(1)
DATED 8.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B1/6533/19/A.DIS
DATED 28.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.2017
IN WA NO 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO K.DIS B1/7292/19
DATED 20.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B1/5829/2019
K.DIS. DATED 20.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
