Kerala High Court

Balkees V.P vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2022

WP(C) NO. 7577 OF 2022               1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
        FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 7577 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

            BALKEES V.P.
            AGED 38 YEARS
            V P A M U P SCHOOL, PUTHOOR, ARAKKUPARAMBA POST,
            PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

            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       DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
            OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            MALAPPURAM-676505.

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

    5       MANAGER
            V P A M U P SCHOOL, PUTHOOR, ARAKKUPARAMBA POST,
            PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.


            SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7577 OF 2022                     2




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she entered service as Upper Primary School

Assistant in the V.P.A.M.U.P School, Puthur with effect from 16.07.2007 in a

newly created post. To substantiate the said contention, reliance is placed on

Ext.P1. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the non-approval of the

appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment.

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. 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 her 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 Ext.P13 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. 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 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. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the party

respondent is dispensed with.

6. 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.

7. 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 P13 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 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) 7577/2022

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.07.2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. C/2610/07 DATED 31.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS./B1/8829/07 DATED 02.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.03.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5           TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
                     NO.RA(3)/28658/2010/DPI/L.DIS DATED
                     13.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6           TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION
                     ORDER NO.D.DIS C/745/10 DATED 05.03.2010
                     ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7           TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.60930/J2/G.EDN
                     DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
                     RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8           TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS C/4371/2011
                     DATED 20.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
                     RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9           TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED

11.06.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2017 IN W A NO.2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCLE NO.100/J2/2017/G.EDN DATED 11.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.4/2021/G.EDN DATED 06.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 02.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2022 IN WPC NO.3057/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :NIL