Kerala High Court
Shyamsunder.T vs The State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 20691 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20691 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHYAMSUNDER.T.,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.NARAYANA MARAR, BB THULASEEVANAM HOUSE,
P.O.VAZHAYUR EAST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 317.
2 SHAMEER BABU.E.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, P.O.VELIMUKKU SOUTH, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-676 317.
BY ADVS.
M.R.VENUGOPAL
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.
4 THE MANAGER, V.J.PALLI AMUP SCHOOL,
P.O.VELIMUKKU SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 317.
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20691 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by Exhibit P10 order by which the 1st respondent has
rejected the proposal of appointment of the petitioners as UPSAs in the
V.J.Palli AMUP School, Velimukku, they are before this Court.
2. The 1st petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Sanskrit
teacher in a retirement vacancy at the 4th respondent school with effect from
04/06/2007 as per Exhibit P1 order. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as UPSA
as per Exhibit P3 order by the 1st respondent in a leave vacancy that occurred
in the school during the academic year 2006-2007.
3. The petitioners state that they had been working from the
respective dates of the appointment without any break. 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 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 01.10.2011 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 them
had approached this Court and by Exhibits P7 and P8 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 petitioners approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.23142/2020 seeking to approve their appointment with effect
from the date of appointment and also to disburse the salary and allowances
due to them. This Court, by Exhibit P9 judgment, directed the petitioners to
approach the Government with the revision petition and directions were issued
to the Government to consider and pass orders on the same. The petitioners
contend that the revision petition filed by the petitioners as ordered by this
Court was rejected by Exhibit P10 order on the sole ground that the 4th
respondent had not executed a bond. It is in the afore circumstances that the
petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P10 and also for a
direction to the concerned respondents to approve the appointment of the
petitioners with effect from the respective dates of their appointment to the
additional Division vacancies and to disburse the salary due to them.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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.P10 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 petitioners were 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 petitioners was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 on
the ground that there was a ban on appointments at the time of their initial
appointment and that the Manager had failed to execute the bond in terms of
G.O.(P)No.10/10. The writ petition was filed seeking approval of the
petitioners' appointments with effect from the date of their initial appointment
and payment of consequential benefits due to them. 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.P10 order passed by the
1st respondent would reveal that the non-execution of the bond was the sole
reason for denying the approval. In that view of the matter, Ext.P10 order
cannot be sustained.
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.P10 order passed by the 1st respondent will stand set
aside.
b) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the revision
petition filed by the petitioners and pass orders with notice
to the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent and take a
decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in
Suma Devi (supra) and also in Exhibit P8. 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.
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) 20691/2021
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
04.06.2007 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.05.2009
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE
REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE MANAGER OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01.08.2007 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2010
ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER BY THE
AEO, PARAPPANANGADI.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2014
OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.10/10/G.EDN.
DATED 12.01.2010.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.02.2015 IN WPC NO.4643/2012.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.931/2016 DATED 24.07.2017.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.10.2020 IN WPC NO.23142/2020 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2021
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
