Varghese Antony vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8709 Ker

WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022       1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944


                    WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1      VARGHESE ANTONY,
           AGED 50 YEARS
           S/O. ANTONY, L.G. HINDI (F.T.), ST. GEORGE'S
           H.S.S.,PARATHODE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 571.

    2      JAIMON JACOB,
           AGED 40 YRS., S/O. CHACKO T.M., HST (MATHS),
           ST. MARY'S HSS, MARIYAPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
           PIN - 685 602.

    3      JOBIN K. KALATHIKATTIL,
           AGED 45 YRS., S/O. K.C. KURUVILA, HST (MALAYALAM),
           ST. THOMAS HSS, THANKAMANY, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
           PIN - 685 609.

    4      SINDHU PAPPACHAN,
           AGED 41 YRS., W/O. SHELGY, LPST, ST. XAVIERS HSS,
           CHEMMANNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 554.

    5      JISHMON JOHN,
           AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. JOHN THOMAS, HST (MATHS),
           ST. THOMAS HSS, THANKAMANY, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
           PIN-685 609

    6      BINU JOSEPH,
           AGED 43 YRS.,
           S/O. THOMAS JOSEPH,
           HST (ENGLISH),
           ST. GEORGE'S HSS, PARATHODE,
           IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 571

    7      BINO PHILIP,
           AGED 45 YRS., S/O. PHILIP THOMAS, HST (MALAYALAM),
           ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, PONMUDI, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
 WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022      2



          PIN - 685 563.

    8     NICY JOSEPH,
          AGED 39 YRS., W/O. JIS K. GEORGE, PHYSICAL
          EDUCATION TEACHER, ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,
          PUNNAYAR, KANJIKUZHY P.C., IDUKKI DISTRICT,
          PIN-685 606.

    9     MANOJ GEORGE,
          AGED 47 YRS., S/O. GEORGE, MUSIC TEACHER,
          ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, PUNNAYAR, KANJIKUZHY P.O.,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 606.

   10     JOEL JOSE,
          AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. JOSE P.T.,
          HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (NS), ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,
          PUNNAYAR, KANJIKUZHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT,
          PIN - 685 606.

   11     SHIBU JOSE,
          AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. JOSE, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER
          (SOCIAL SCIENCE), ST. MARY'S HSS, MURICKASSERY,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 604.

   12     PRINCY MATHEW,
          AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. K.J. MANI, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER
          (ENGLISH), S.G.H.S.S., VAZHATHOPE, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
          PIN - 685 602.

   13     JASMINE JOHN,
          AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. AMBROSE K.V., HIGH SCHOOL
          TEACHER (MALAYALAM), S.G.H.S.S., VAZHATHOPE, IDUKKI
          DISTRICT, PIN - 685 602

   14     JOSE K. SEBASTIAN,
          AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. DEVASIA, LG HP (FT), ST. MARY'S
          H.S., VAZHAVARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 515.

         BY ADV PAULSON THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
         SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
 WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022           3



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

     3     DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE DEO AT THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
           PIN-685 584.

     4     DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           KATTAPPANA, OFFICE OF THE DDE AT KATTAPPANA,
           PIN - 685 508.

     5     CORPORATE MANAGER,
           CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF IDUKKI,
           MANIPPARA P.O., KARIMPAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
           PIN-685 602.



           SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   07.07.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022            4




                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that they are aided school teachers working in

various schools coming under the management of the Corporate Educational

Agency, Diocese of Idukki. The grievance of the petitioners concerns the

non-approval of the appointment of the petitioners from the date of

appointment.

2. It is contended by the petitioners 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 petitioners

were also included in the package and their appointments were regularised

with effect from 1.6.2011. 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

petitioners contend that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the

petitioners have preferred Exts.P16 to P29 revision petitions respectively

before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the

petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to

consider and pass orders in the revision petitions.

3. Sri.Paulson Thomas, 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 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.

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 12.01.2010 and those matters are now pending

before the Apex Court.

5. 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 12.1.2010, 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. 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.

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 Exhibits P16 to P29 revision petitions filed

by the petitioners respectively with notice to the

petitioners 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 three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

b) While considering the representation, 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 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 IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22134/2022

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 1.6.2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 4.6.2008

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 20-06-2007.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 04-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 06-06-2007.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 03-06-2008.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 04-06-2008.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2010.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 10TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 02-06-2008.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 11TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 12-07-2010.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 12TH PETITIONER DATED 17.12.2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 13TH PETITIONER DATED 17-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 14TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 06-06-2008.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 10/2010/G.EDN. DATED 12-01-2010.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 12TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 13TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 14TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022.

Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.

5192/2018 DATED 08-03-2018.

Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.

30407/2021 DATED 14-03-2022.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL