Kerala High Court
Anas K vs State Of Kerala on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22010 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
ANAS K,
AGED 38 YEARS
HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) PTM HIGH SCHOOL,
THRIKKATIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-670502.
BY ADVS.
POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
K.N.KUMARASWAMY SARMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 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,
PALAKKAD-678001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM-679101
5 MANAGER, PTM HIGH SCHOOL,
THRIKKATIRI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-670502.
6 HEADMASTER, PTM HIGH SCHOOL,
THRIKKATIRI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-670502.
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 22010 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner asserts that he was appointed in a newly created post
as HSA (Physical Science) in the PTM High School, Thrikkatiri from
15.6.2009 onwards. He contends that his appointment was approved only
with effect from 1.6.2011 onwards by including him in the Teachers'
Package. He has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P11
to the extent of denial of approval from the date of initial appointment.
2. The petitioner contends that he along with another person had
approached this Court earlier and had filed W.P.(C) No.19695 of 2021 and
by judgment dated 22.9.2021, this Court disposed of the writ petition
directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision petitions and to take a
decision. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the revision
petitions were heard and Ext.P11 order has been passed wherein the
request for approval from the initial date of appointment was rejected on
the ground that this Court while disposing of the matter had not directed
the respondents to deem that the Manager had executed the bond.
3. It is contended by the petitioner 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
teachers' package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers.
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. According to the learned counsel, in
that view of the matter, there was no justification in dismissing the revision
petition on the ground that specific directions were not issued by this
Court.
4. 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.
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. In that view of the matter, the impugned order to
the extent to which it concerns the petitioner cannot be sustained. Ext.P9
will have to be reconsidered in the light of the law laid down by this Court
in Suma Devi.
Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P11 insofar as it
concerns the petitioner will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the
1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P9 representation and pass orders 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 with due notice to the
petitioner, the respondents 5 and 6 and affected parties, if any. 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 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. 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.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22010/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
15/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5/4630/9 K DIS.
DATED 2/1/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COOK OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED
19.1.2010 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
21/6/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.8.2016 IN WPC
NO 25940/2016 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/7/2017 IN
W.A. NO. 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 100/J2/2017/G.EDN
DATED 11/9/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO 4/2021/G.EDN DATED
06/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
21/08/2021 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/09/2021
IN WP(C) NO. 19695/2021 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT)NO.2358/2022/GEDN DATED
11/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION ORDER
NO D. DIS B5/7130/10 DATED 13/08/2010 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
