Jincy Jimmi. N vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7890 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7890 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2022

Kerala High Court

Jincy Jimmi. N vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2022

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944

                   WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

           JINCY JIMMI. N
           AGED 37 YEARS
           D/O.N I JIMMY, PALISSERY HOUSE,
           THRIPAKULAM ROAD,
           EAST FORT, THRISSUR,
           KERALA-680005.

           BY ADVS.
           T.H.ARAVIND
           YEDU KRISHNAN R.

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2      THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
           JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

    3      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
           JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

    4      THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.

    5      THE MANAGER,
           CHALDEAN SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
           THRISSUR-680001.

           SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022

                                         2


                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she entered the service as an Upper Primary

School Assistant ("UPSA") in the Chaldean Syrian Higher Secondary School,

Thrissur with effect from 01.06.2009. Later, as is evidenced by Ext.P1 order,

she was appointed as High School Assistant (Physical Science) with effect

from 01.06.2010 onwards. However, her appointment was approved by the

4th respondent from 01.06.2011 onwards. Her grievance in this writ petition

concerns the non-approval of her appointment from 01.06.2009 to

01.06.2011.

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 WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022

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

Ext.P6 representation 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 representation.

3. Sri. Aravind T.H., 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 WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022

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. 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 WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022

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 P6 representation 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 representation, the Secretary to

Government shall be free to reckon that the Manager

would be deemed to have executed the bond and WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2022

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