Allowed

K. Devaki, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2022WP(C)/16347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the Secretary to Government must direct the concerned schools to decide on the petitioner's representation expeditely, within four months. The Court directed that she be treated as a protected teacher for appointments made during the bond ban period, subject to the pending Supreme Court challenge to G.O.(P) No.10/10.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 1st respondent to decide the representation within four months with notice to the petitioner and 5th respondent; recognition of the petitioner as a protected teacher for the ban peri

K. Devaki, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 16347 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1944

¶8

WP(C) NO. 16347 OF 2021

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

K. DEVAKI, AGED 49 YEARS W/O. V.P. UNNIKRISHNAN, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIAL STUDIES), C P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691534.

¶11

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD(S-72)

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM AT THEVALLY-691009.

¶16

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 16347 OF 2021 2

¶18

5 THE MANAGER, C.P. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691534.

¶19

SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 16347 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner states that she was appointed as High School Teacher (HST) Social Studies in the CP Higher Secondary School, Kuttikkadu, with effect from 01.06.2010 against an additional post. However, her approval was rejected for want of execution of the bond by the Manager. Later, her appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2011, and the petitioner is continuing in service. It is contended that Division Bench of this Court in Exts.P5 and P6 judgments have held that the Managers of the respective schools would be deemed to have executed the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10 and that any appointment made in violation of the term of the bond would result in cancellation of such appointments. According to the petitioner, stating these aspects, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 representation before the 1st respondent and requests that the same be ordered to be considered in accordance with law adverting to Exts.P5 and P6.

¶25

I have heard Sri. V.A. Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned senior Government Pleader.

¶26

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶27

WP(C) NO. 16347 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

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:

¶30

a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up Ext.P8 representation filed by the petitioner and pass orders with notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, as per procedure and in accordance with the law. Appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

b) While considering the representation, the Secretary to Government shall consider whether G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 would apply, and if it applies, the 1st respondent shall be free to reckon that the Manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and also that he would

¶32

be obliged to make appointments from the list of

¶33

WP(C) NO. 16347 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The fact that the petition challenging G.O.(P) No.10/10 filed by the Manager is pending consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall not be taken as a ground to deny the benefits to the petitioner. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶36

pending petitions.

¶37

c) 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.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C) NO. 16347 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16347/2021

¶45

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶46

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2010. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B63118/10/K.DIS. DATED 07/10/2020 OF THE DEO, PUNALUR. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DDE BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDT. N. DIS. B6/17915/16 DATED 05/10/2016 OF THE DDE, KOLLAM. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 2290/2015 DATED 25/07/2017. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2091/2018 DATED 28/06/2019. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25/10/2011. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/07/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.23193/2021 DATED 11/11/2021.

¶47

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

K. Devaki, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Devaki, v. 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

C.J. Sophy, Vs State of Kerala

Jetty Joseph Vs Sri. Manoj Joshi I.A.S

Akshay Rohith Sha Vs the State of Kerala

E.N.Vasudevan, Vs the State of Kerala

Adarsh Muralidharan, Vs Central Board Secondary Eduction

Mahesh.K.K. Vs the Kannur Coporation