Saleena M vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6250 Ker

                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. 18044 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

            SALEENA M.,
            L.P.S.A., A.M.L.P. SCHOOL, KARIMPUZHA P.O.,
            SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD-679 513.

            BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM


RESPONDENT/S:

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

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

    3       ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD-679 503.

    4       MANAGER, AMLP SCHOOL, KARIMPUZHA P.O.,
            SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD-679 513.




            SRI PREMCHAND R NAIR, 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. 18044 OF 2022       2




                          JUDGMENT

The challenge in this Writ petition is directed against

Exhibit P1 order as per which, the request of the petitioner for

approval of the appointment for the period from 18.7.2008 to

31.05.2011 stands rejected. The prayer is for issuance of

directions to the respondents to grant approval to the

appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment.

2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as LPSA

in an additional Division vacancy in the AMLP School School,

Karimpuzha with effect from 18.7.2008. The appointment of

the petitioner was made to a newly created post available

from the academic year 2008-2009. Relying on Exhibit P2 and

P3 staff fixation orders for the academic year 2008-2009 and

2009-2010 respectively, it is contended that a post of LPSA is

available in the school. However, 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. It was in the said circumstances

that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was

initially turned down. 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 01.10.2011 approving the recommendations for

implementation of the comprehensive teacher's package for

appointment of deployed/protected teachers and in view of

the said order, the appointment of the petitioner stood

approved from 1.06.2011 onwards.

3. According to the petitioner, teachers similarly placed

as the petitioner 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. In the

light of the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner is

stated to have approached the 1st respondent and has filed

Exhibit P5 revision petition, seeking approval of their

appointments treating that the Manager has executed the

bond. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is

filed seeking directions.

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

petitioner claims that she was appointed during the period

when the ban was in force. As rightly contended by the

learned counsel, 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.

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 appropriate

directions.

a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up,

consider and pass orders on Exhibits P5 revision

petition filed by the petitioner with notice to the

petitioner as well as the 4th 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 representations, the

Secretary to Government shall bear in mind 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 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 sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18044/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.07.2008 OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 27.03.2010.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-2011 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 13.08.2010.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.23722/2019 DATED 15.12.2021.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.05.2022.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL