Allowed

P.S.Suimol v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016WP(C)/4775/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High School Assistants sought approval of their appointments from their actual dates of appointment (2006-2007) instead of the conditional approval granted in 2011. The Court directed approval with effect from the original dates and consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to approve the appointments of the petitioners with effect from their respective dates of appointment and grant all consequential benefits within four months.

P.S.Suimol Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4775 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. P.S.SUIMOL, WIFE OF SREEJITH,

¶8

AGED 32 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT MALAYALAM, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALISSERY, IRNJALAKUDA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT.

¶9

2. P.K.BINDU, AGED 37 YEARS, WIFE OF SHILIN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALISSERY, IRNJALAKUDA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT.

¶10

3. K.K.ANJU, AGED 34 YEARS, WIFE OF GOPAKUMAR, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALISSERY, IRNJALAKUDA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT.

¶11

4. K.K.SANDYA, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶12

W/O.ANURAJ, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALISSERY, IRNJALAKUDA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶14

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶15

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

¶16

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 121.

¶17

3. THE HEADMASTER, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALISSERY, IRNJALAKUDA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT-680 741.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BABY THOMAS

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

WP(C).No. 4775 of 2013 (V)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXHIBIT P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12/07/2006 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF.
EXHIBIT P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE MANAGER DATED 23/03/2011.
EXHIBIT P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2007 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.
EXHIBIT P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 12/07/2006 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.
EXHIBIT P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2007 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.
EXHIBIT P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT.PREENA DATED 12/06/2006 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF.
EXHIBIT P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.20888/2012-I DATED 10/09/2012.
EXHIBIT P8.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.17250/2012-E DATED 15/01/2013.
EXHIBIT P9.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.24900/2014-J DATED 18.03.2015.
EXHIBIT P10.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.9262/2012 DATED 11.08.2014.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.4775 of 2013

¶32

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

All the petitioners herein were appointed in SNDP Higher Secondary School, Palissery which is an aided school governed by the provisions contained in Kerala Education Rules, 1958. The grievance of the petitioners are that though they were appointed as High School Assistants/Upper Primary School Assistants before 2011 (2006, 2003, 2006 and 2007), their appointments were approved only with effect from 1.6.2011. They have produced Ext.P2, the bond executed by the Manager in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn dated 12.1.2010 saying that the Manager has executed a bond agreeing for appointment of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments made in the school for the period from 2006-07 and 2009-2010 and agreeing for future appointments .

¶35

The first petitioner was appointed as HSA (Malayalam) with effect from 12.7.2006 against the vacancy of an additional post. The appointment was approved as per endorsement No.B6/6850/2011/K.Dis dated 17.11.2011 with effect from

¶36

:2:

¶37

W.P.(C) No.4775 of 2013

¶38

1.6.2011 onwards on the basis of bond executed by the Manager in the light of G.O.(P) 10/10 dated 12.1.2010 and the direction in paragraph (c) of Government Circular No.60930/J2/2011 G.Edn. dated 25.10.2011 and on the basis of declaration of the Manager. Similarly the appointment of 2^nd petitioner as HSA as per Ext.P3 order, with effect from 1.6.2007 against the vacancy of new division in H.S.Section was also approved with effect from 1.6.2011, on similar lines. The 3^rd petitioner's appointment as per Ext.P4 with effect from 12.7.2006 against a promotion vacancy is also approved with effect from 1.6.2011. The 4^th petitioner's appointment as per Ext.P5 with effect 12.7.2006 against a promotion vacancy is also approved with effect from 1.6.2011. The petitioners point out that in respect of another teacher Smt.Preena.K.P who was appointed with effect from 12.6.2006 against an additional division vacancy of UPSA, the approval was granted as per Ext.P6 by the very same DEO with effect from 12.6.2006 on the basis of the bond executed by the Manager in the light of G.O.(P) No.10/10 dated 12.1.2010. The petitioners

¶39

:3:

¶40

W.P.(C) No.4775 of 2013

¶41

submit that they are entitled to get their appointments approved with effect from the respective dates of their appointments.

¶42

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit saying that approval was granted to the first petitioner based on the provisions contained in G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn. dated 1.10.2011. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Government have specified that the period prior to 1.6.2011 would be considered later on case to case basis. It is also stated that the appointment of the petitioners could not have been approved, unless the Government had introduced the teachers package as per G.O.(P) 199/2011 dated 1.10.2011.

¶43

I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶44

It is seen that the Manager has executed Ext.P2 bond, as provided in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 which lifted the ban on appointments and accorded sanction for approval of appointments made against additional division vacancies during the period from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, on condition that the management shall execute a bond agreeing for

¶45

W.P.(C) No.4775 of 2013

¶46

:4:

¶47

appointment of equal number of protected teachers against the future vacancies and thereafter to fill up the vacancies in the ratio of 1:1 between protected teachers and fresh appointments.

¶48

In this case since the Manager of the School has already executed a bond as can be seen from Ext.P4, there cannot be any impediment in approving the appointments of the petitioners in terms of the Government order dated 12.1.2010. No reason is stated for denying approval to petitioners in terms of Ext.P2 bond and in terms of the Government order dated 12.1.2010, especially when the DEO has granted approval in the case of another teacher as per Ext.P6 from 2006. In these circumstances, the appointment of the petitioners are liable to be approved with effect from the date of effect of their respective appointments.

¶49

Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to

¶50

see that the appointments of petitioners are approved with effect from their respective dates from which they were appointed as per the respective orders of their appointments, Exts.P1, P3, P4

¶51

W.P.(C) No.4775 of 2013

¶52

:5:

¶53

and P5 and to grant them all consequential benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶56

rkc

P.S.Suimol v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Suimol v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu P.V. Vs the Secretary to General Education Dept.

M.v.Sivadas Vs the District Level Expert Committee

Ayyappan Vs District Labour Officer

Mary P.M. Vs State of Kerala

Sr. Sara Jane Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager,St.Mary'Senglishmediumschool Vs Cbse, Rep. by Its Chairman/Manager