Sojy Xavier vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9191 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

      WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 24281 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

     1     SOJY XAVIER
           AGED 45 YEARS
           W/O. BENNY VARGHESE, UPST,
           ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, VAZHAVARA,
           IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 515.

     2     SHEENA ALIAS,
           AGED 46 YRS., W/O. SUNNY JOSEPH, HST (ENGLISH),
           ST. THOMAS HSS, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 514.

     3     VINCYMOL RICHARD,
           AGED 44 YRS., W/O. SIJU JOSEPH, HST (NATURAL SCIENCE),
           ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, VAZHAVARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
           PIN 685 515.

     4     REJIMOL V.S.,
           AGED 46 YRS., W/O. LIJI VARGHESE, HST(MALAYALAM),
           SJ HSS VELLAYAMKUDY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 515.

     5     SHAILAMMA JOSEPH,
           AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. FRANCIS MATHEW, UPST, ST. THOMAS HSS,
           ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 514.

     6     BINCE DEVASIA,
           AGED 49 YRS., W/O. TOMICHAN,HST (MALAYALAM),
           ST. THOMAS HSS,
           ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN - 685 514.

     7     RAJI THOMAS,
           AGED 49 YRS, HST(SS), ST. MARYS HIGH SCHOOL, VAZHAVARA,
           IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 515.

           BY ADV PAULSON THOMAS

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
           EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
 WP(C) NO. 24281 OF 2022         2



     2      THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
            GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
            JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 005.

     3      DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            KATTAPPANA, OFFICE OF THE DEO AT KATTAPPANA,
            PIN - 685 508.

     4      ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            OFFICE OF THE AEO, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
            PIN - 685 508.

     5      ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            OFFICE OF THE AEO, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
            PIN - 685 553.

     6      CORPORATE MANAGER,
            CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF IDUKKI, MANIPPARA
            P.O., KARIMPAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 607.

           SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION         ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24281 OF 2022                 3




                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that they are presently working as teachers in

the schools coming under the management of Corporate Educational

Agency, Diocese of Idukki. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner

was appointed as UPST on 1.6.2010, the 2nd petitioner as HST on

1.6.2009, the 3rd petitioner as UPST on 1.6.2010, the 4th petitioner as

UPST on 1.6.2008, the 5th petitioner as UPST on 2.6.2008, 6th petitioner

as UPST from 1.6.2010 and the 7th petitioner as HST from 1.6.2009.

However, their appointment was approved only with effect from

01.06.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are stated to have preferred

Exts.P9 to P15 revision petitions before the Government. The prayer in this

writ petition is for expeditious consideration of Exts.P9 to P15.

2. Sri.Paulson Thomas, the learned counsel submitted 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. 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 petitioners, 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

learned counsel submits that teachers similarly placed as the petitioners

have been granted orders in the nature of Ext.P17 by deeming that the

Manager has executed the bond.

3. 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.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ

petitioners were appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to

G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, was in force. The appointment

of the petitioners was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 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. 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.

5. 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 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and

pass orders on Exhibits P9 to P15 revision petitions filed by

the petitioners with notice to the petitioners as well as the

6th 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 revision petition, the Secretary to

Government shall be free to reckon, if all conditions are

satisfied, 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.

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

sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24281/2022

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2010.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2009.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2010.

Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2011.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 02-06-2008.

Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2010.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 02-06-2008.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2010.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2009.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 10/2010/ G.EDN. DATED 12-01-2010.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 30-06-2022.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30-06-2022.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 30-06-2022.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 30-06-2022.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 30-06-2022.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 30-06-2022.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 30-06-2022.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5192/2018 DATED 08.03.2018

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 22134/2022 DATED 07.07.2022

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL