This Court set aside the rejection of appointment approvals for three petitioners. It directed the Government to reconsider the matter deeming the bond executed by the Manager pursuant to the upheld judgments of this Court.
Impugned orders set aside; Government directed to reconsider appointment deeming bond executed; consequential benefits to be disbursed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
PETITIONERS :-
1 SREEPATHI.E., AGED 32 YEARS UPSA, KOTTAYAM RAJA HIGH SCHOOL, PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 2 :-
6 THE HEAD MASTER, KOTTAYAM RAJA HIGH SCHOOL, PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643. BY ADVS. SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP SRI.JIJI THOMAS SMT.SMITHA MATHEW
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 3 :-
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
learned Government Pleader.
in the 5th respondent's school. The petitioners were appointed by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 appointment orders from 4.6.2008, 1.6.2009 and 3.6.2008 respectively. The appointments were rejected on the ground that the petitioners had been appointed against newly
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 4 :-
sanctioned posts during the period of ban on appointments and that the Manager had not executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 agreeing to reserve equal number of vacancies for appointment of protected teachers. It was also contended that the appointments of the teachers in whose vacancies the petitioners had been appointed had not been duly approved. It is submitted that on the basis of Exts.P9, P15 and P16 judgments, the appointments of all the senior teachers in the same school have been approved. The said judgments have also specifically directed the Government to deem that the Manager has executed the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. It is, therefore, contended that the reasons stated in Ext.P14 are no longer relevant and that the petitioners are also entitled to appointment of their approval for the periods from their initial date of appointment till 31.5.2011 deeming that the Manager has executed the necessary bond in terms of the Government Orders.
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 5 :-
additional division vacancies during 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is
submitted that the Manager had not executed the bond as required. It is further submitted that the appointment of the teachers in whose vacancies the petitioners had been accommodated had also not been approved. It is contended that since there is no specific direction to deem that the bond had been executed and since the Manager had not executed such bond, the Government could only reject the claim raised by the petitioners.
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 6 :-
petitioners submits that the said appointments have already been approved on the basis of the directions of this Court. If that be so, there is no further impediment to the approval of the appointments of the petitioners except the fact that the Manager has not executed the bond. In several cases including in Exts.P15 and P16 judgments this Court had directed the approval of appointments made during the ban period deeming that the bond, as provided in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, has been executed by the Manager. This has been done even in cases where the issue is pending before the Apex Court, of course, subject to the decision of the Apex Court.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the rejection of approval of appointment of the petitioners on the ground that the Manager had not executed the bond is not sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the Government to reconsider the issue deeming that the bond has been executed by the Manager in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. The contention of the petitioners that the appointments of the teachers in whose
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 7 :-
vacancies they were appointed stand approved shall also be considered by the Government while passing orders. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. The consequential benefits shall also be disbursed within a period of three months thereafter.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE
Jvt/2.7.2021
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 8 :-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26125/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 3.6.2008 ISSUED BY TH4E 5TH RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO K.DIS/B5/5625/08 DATED 30.5.2009 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EM4/7078/2011/DPI/KI.DS DATED 7.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 90930/J2/G.EDN DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.2017 IN WA NO 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 11.7.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 29.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED |
WP(C) NO. 26125 OF 2019
-: 9 :-
22.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2018 IN WPC NO 35004/2018 PASSE4D BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO 3463/2019/G.EDN DATED 30.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.4.2019 IN WPC NO 11867/19 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2019 IN WPC NO 18109/19 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :-
EXHIBIT R5(a) A COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THE APEX COURT DIARY NO.28178/2019 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 23723/2019 IN CA NO 7698/2019 DATED 27.9.2019
EXHIBIT R5(b) STATUS OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS IN CA NO 7698/2019 DATED 27.9.2019(MANAGER, SOUMYATHA MEMORIAL UP SCHOOL V/S. THE STATE OF KERALA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of appointment approval of petitioners on the ground of non-execution of bond by the school manager is sustainable in light of this Court's previous judgments.
Sreepathi.E.
Dhanya N.C
N.P. Nipin
State of Kerala
Director of Public Instructions
Deputy Director of Education, Kannur
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
