Kerala High Court
Sreeja Devi.C vs State Of Kerala on 8 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SREEJA DEVI.C
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O N.ARUNKUMAR,
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
MANNARASALA U.P. SCHOOL, MANNARASALA,
HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514
2 SANDYA KRISHNAN
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O SREEKUMAR C.
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
MANNARASALA U.P. SCHOOL, MANNARASALA,
HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514
BY ADVS.
OMAR SALIM
MANAS P HAMEED
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,KODIVEEDU,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
HARIPAD, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690514
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
2
5 THE MANAGER
MANNARASALA U.P. SCHOOL,
HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690514
SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant
(L.P.S.A) at the Mannarasala U.P. School on 1/1/2009. The 2nd petitioner
was appointed as UPSA in the said school on 1.6.2009. Their grievance in
this writ petition concerns the non-approval of their appointment from the
initial date.
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 12.01.2010, 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 teachers'
package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioners
were also included in the package and their appointment was regularised
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
with effect from 01.6.2011. 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. It is
further submitted that a group of teachers of the same school had
approached this Court and had filed W.P.(C) No.35616/2017 and by Ext.P4
judgment dated 25.3.2021, the matter was disposed of by directing the
educational authorities to grant approval by deeming that the Manager has
executed the bond. Consequently, Ext.P5 order was passed by the
Government. As the petitioners are similarly placed, they have filed a request
before the 1st respondent with a representation to treat them at par with the
petitioners in Ext.P4 judgment. However, by Ext.P6 order, the request made
was rejected on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to Ext.P4
judgment. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before this
Court seeking issuance of directions to the respondents 1 to 4 to approve
their service from the date of their initial appointment in the light of Ext.P3
series and Ext.P4 judgments.
3. Sri. Omar Salim, 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 Manager, the Managers would be
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
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.
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 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.
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
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 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, I am of the opinion that
the 1st respondent is bound to reconsider the representation filed by the
petitioners and referred to in Ext.P6.
6. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the
following directions:
a) Ext.P6 will stand set aside.
b) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to
reconsider the representation filed by the petitioners in
the light of Exts.P3 and P4, with notice to the petitioner
as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision. 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.
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
c) While considering the matter, 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.
d) 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
avs
WP(C) NO. 18325 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18325/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 .TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01.01.2009 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01.06.2009 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.10/10/G.EDN DATED
12.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2017 IN
W.A.NO.2290 OF 2015 PASSED BY THE DIVISION
BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2019 IN
W.A.NO.2091 OF 2018 PASSED BY DIVISION BENCH
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2021 IN
W.P.(C).NO.35616 OF 2017 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.4618/2021/G.EDN DATED
14.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COY OF LETTER BEARING
NO.E3/220/2021-G.EDN DATED 25.04.2022 SENT BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
