Kerala High Court
P.V.Anil vs State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2022
WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
P.V.ANIL,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O K.V ACHUNNI VARIER, RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM,
THACHINGANADAM P.O, 676521, MALAPURAM DISTRICT,
AND WORKING AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH)
THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL ANAGADIPURAM,
MALAPURAM-679321.
BY ADVS.
LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL
P.R.BANERJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAPPADY DOWN HILL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
B2 BLOCK CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.
WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022 2
5 THE MANAGER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL,
ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321.
6 THE HEADMASTER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL,
ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321.
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he was appointed as HSA (English) at
Tharakan High School, Angadipuram on 18.08.2008 in an additional
anticipated vacancy of HSA (English) by the 5th respondent. The
grievance of the petitioner concerns the non-approval of the appointment
of the petitioner from the initial date of the appointment. He has
approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P11 to the extent of denial of
approval from the date of initial appointment.
2. The petitioner contends that he had approached this Court
earlier and had filed W.P.(C) No.30441 of 2012 and by judgment dated
19.12.2012, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st
respondent to consider the revision petition and to take a decision. In
terms of the directions issued by this Court, the revision petition was
heard and Ext.P11 order has been passed wherein the request for
approval from the initial date of appointment was rejected on the ground
that the manager has not executed any bond.
3. 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 of 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 his appointment was
regularised with effect from 01.06.2011. 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
had executed the bond. According to the learned counsel, in that view of
the matter, there was no justification in dismissing the revision petition on
the ground that the manager has not executed any bond. It is further
submitted that narrating his grievances, the petitioner has preferred
Ext.P15 representation before the Government and prays that directions
be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same untrammeled by the
view taken in the earlier order.
4. Sri.Legith T.Kottakkal, 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 Managers, 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.
5. 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 12.01.2010, and those matters are now
pending before the Apex Court.
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 her 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. In that view of the matter, the
impugned order to the extent to which it concerns the petitioner cannot be
sustained. Ext.P9 will have to be reconsidered in the light of the law laid
down by this Court in Suma Devi.
Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P11 insofar as
it concerns the petitioner will stand quashed. There will be a direction to
the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P9 revision and Ext.P15
representation and pass orders 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 with due notice to the petitioner, the respondents 5 and
6 and affected parties, if any. While considering the revision petition, the
Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon 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. 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
IAP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29972/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
18-08-2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-02-2009 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-10-2009 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-02-2010 OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-09-2010 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-01-2012 ISSUED
BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED G.O (P)
NO.10/10 GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DATED 12-01-2010.
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-12-2012 IN
WPC 30441 OF 2012.
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-11-2013 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-07-2017 IN
WA 2290 OF 2015.
Exhibit P13 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.100/J2/2017/
GENED DATED 11-09-2018 ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-05-2019 IN
WPC 40491 OF 2018.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
29/09/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
