Soumya Hariharan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9832 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

         WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944

                          WP(C) NO. 7208 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

             SOUMYA HARIHARAN
             AGED 40 YEARS
             UPSA, AMUPS, POOVATHANI, THAZHEKODE POST, PERINTHALMANNA,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679341.

             BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM

RESPONDENT/S:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
             GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2       DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
             OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

     3       DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
             OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
             MALAPPURAM-676519.

     4       ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

     5       MANAGER,
             AMLPS PONNIAKURSSI NORTH, PONNIAKURSSI POST,
             PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

             SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION             ON
31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7208 OF 2022                2




                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she is working as a UPSA in the AMUP

School, Poovathani, an aided school managed by the 5th respondent,

with effect from 01.06.2010 onwards. According to the petitioner, her

appointment was rejected by the Educational Authorities on the ground

that she was accommodated in the newly created post during the

economic ban and her appointment was approved with effect from

1.6.2011 only. Seeking approval of appointment, the petitioner is stated

to have preferred Ext.P10 revision petition before the 1st respondent,

which is pending. The prayer in this writ petition is for expeditious

consideration of Ext.P10 within a time frame and with due notice.

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 Managers, 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.

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 12.01.2010 and those matters are now

pending before the Apex Court.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced. 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 her 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 Exhibit P10 revision petition filed by

the petitioner 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). Orders

shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period

of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

b) While considering the revision petitions, the

Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon that the

manager 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 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 sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7208/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.

D.DIS.C/2118/2010 DATED 18.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS.C/1980/10 DATED 15.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AS UPSA BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.60930/J2/G.EDN.

DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.C/4420/2011 DATED 19.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.2017 IN W.A.NO.2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.100/J2/2017/G.EDN.

DATED 11.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.4/2021/G.EDN. DATED 6.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 9.2.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2022 IN WP(C) NO.3057/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL