Allowed

B. Sufija v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021WP(C)/16040/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's appointment approval was unsustainable. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the revision petition deeming the manager's bond as executed and to award consequential appointments from the list of protected hands.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 order set aside; direction to reconsider revision petition deeming bond executed and awarding appointments from protected hands; matter remanded within three months.

B. Sufija Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

B. SUFIJA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. FIROZ KHAN, LPSA, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534., (RESIDING AT FIROZ SADANAM, VETTANCHIRA, POREDAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534).

¶9

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD VENUGOPAL.K

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 305.

¶15

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 2

¶16

5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691534.

¶17

6 THE MANAGER, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534.

¶18

7 THE HEADMASTER, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534.

¶19

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner states that she was appointed as LPSA in the SKV Lower Primary School, Kuriyode, an aided school, under the management of the 6th respondent against an anticipated additional vacancy w.e.f 06.06.2006. In view of the ban order prevailing at that point of time, her appointment was not approved from the initial date. Seeking approval of appointment from 06.06.2006 with all consequential benefits, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the Government. Pursuant to orders issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner was heard and her request was rejected on the sole ground that no specific directions were issued by this Court to proceed as if the manager is deemed to have executed the bond. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs.

¶25

(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits-P2, P3, P4 and P10 and set aside the originals of the same to the extent they deny approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

(ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval to the appointment with effect from the initial date of appointment, i.e., 06.06.2006 onwards.

¶29

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment.”

¶30

Sri. M.Sajjad, 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 hands, equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The learned counsel points out that Ext.P10 order has been passed denying the prayer sought for on the sole ground that this Court while rendering Ext.P8 judgment had not ordered that the Manager would be deemed to have executed the bond.

¶31

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 hand 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

¶32

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 5

¶33

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

¶34

12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court.

¶35

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶36

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Ors. v.

¶37

V.S.Suma Devi and Ors . [judgment dated 1.8.2017 in W.A.No.2111/2015] and in the judgment dated 9.8.2019 in WA.No.332 of 2017 and connected cases have 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. A mere perusal of Ext.P10 order passed by the 1st respondent would reveal that the main reason for rejecting the claim is the non-execution of the bond by the manager. I am of the opinion that having regard to the view taken by this Court in identical cases, the respondent was bound to pass orders by deeming that the Managers had executed the bond and also that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected hands equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 6

¶39

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶40

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

¶41

circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶42

Ext.P10 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.

¶43

There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 revision petition as per procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law. An opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, shall be afforded to the petitioner or her authorised representative, the Manager as well as affected parties, if any.

¶44

While considering the revision petition, the 1st respondent shall deem that the Manager executed the bond and also that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected hands to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. Needless to mention, the order passed as aforesaid would be subject to the final orders to be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the petition filed by the Managers.

¶45

Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in

¶46

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 7

¶47

any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition

¶49

along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

DSV

¶54

WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 8

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16040/2021

¶56

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

¶57

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06.06.2006.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/2456/2006/L.DIS. DATED 14.11.2006 ADDRESSING THE MANAGER BY THE AEO, CHADAYAMANGALAM.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/7646/06/K.DIS. DATED 20.03.2007 OF THE DEO, PUNALUR.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/27914/06 K.DIS DATED 14.02.2007 OF THE DDE, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.05.2020, (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.13003/2020 DATED 30.06.2020.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.B1/163/20/G.EDN. DATED 04.11.2020.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3129/2021/G.EDN. DATED 24.06.2021.

¶58

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL

B. Sufija v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Sufija 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devika Ajay Vs State of Kerala

Sr.Annamma Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Midlej C (Minor) Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Nalini.P Vs Jerome P.Thomas

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala