Kerala High Court

Shaiju P Varghese vs The State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2022

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944

                  WP(C) NO. 21520 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

           SHAIJU P VARGHESE.
           AGED 42 YEARS
           SON OF VARGHESE, LPSA,
           ST XAVIER'S LP SCHOOL, KURUPPANTHARA,
           KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603.
           (RESIDING AT PULLAKALA (H), KALLARA PO,
           KOTTAYAM - 686 611).

           BY ADVS.
           V.A.MUHAMMED
           M.SAJJAD

RESPONDENT/S:

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

    2      THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
           JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

    3      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
           PALACE RD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

    4      THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 506.

    5      THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 633.

    6      THE MANAGER,
           CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
           DIOCESE OF PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575.

    7      HEADMASTER,
           HOLY CROSS HSS, CHERUPUNKAL,
 WP(C) NO. 21520 OF 2022

                             2


           KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 584.
    8      THE HEADMASTER,
           ST XAVIER'S LPS, KURUPPANTHARA,
           KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603.

           SRI PREMCHAND R NAIR SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21520 OF 2022

                                           3


                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he entered service as Lower Primary School

Assistant (L.P.S.A.) in the Holy Cross HSS, Cherpunkal, with effect from

02.06.2008 in an additional division vacancy. The grievance of the

petitioner concerns the non-approval of the appointment of the petitioner

from the date of appointment.

2. Sri. V. Rajasekharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner 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 12.1.2010, 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. 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 WP(C) NO. 21520 OF 2022

was also included in the package and his appointment was regularised with

effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioner, 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

petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the

petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 revision petition before the 1st respondent.

It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court

seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the

revision petition.

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. WP(C) NO. 21520 OF 2022

4. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to

the party respondents is dispensed with.

5. 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 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. 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.

WP(C) NO. 21520 OF 2022

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) 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 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

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 WP(C) NO. 21520 OF 2022

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