Kerala High Court
Siddique P vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2022
WP(C) NO. 6193 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 6193 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SIDDIQUE P.,
LPST, AMLP SCHOOL, AKKARAPURAM,
TUVVOOR, MALAPPURAM-679327.
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
TONY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM-679328.
3 THE MANAGER,
AMLP SCHOOL, AKKARAPURAM, TUVVOOR,
MALAPPURAM-679327.
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6193 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
By Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was appointed as LPSA in an additional
vacancy with effect from 01.06.2009 at the AMLP School, Akkarapuram,
Tuvvoor, Malappuram, an aided school under the management of the 3rd
respondent. His grievance in this writ petition concerns the non-approval of his
appointment from 1.06.2009 onwards.
2. 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. The 3rd
respondent failed to execute the bond as required in the Government Order.
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 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 has executed the bond. The
petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the
petitioner has preferred a 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. Sri. Augustine Joseph, 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 Manager, 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 12.1.2010 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.
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.
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 P4 revision petition filed by the petitioner
with notice to the petitioner as well as the 3rd 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 bear in mind 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 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
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6193/2022
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
1.6.2009.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.11.2010 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
31.1.2022 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL
