Partly allowed

Sreepriya.P., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2022WP(C)/16674/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State to review and pass orders on revision petitions filed by LPSAs seeking appointment regularization from their original dates, applying the law on deeming bond execution and protecting teachers, subject to pending apex court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent directed to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P14 to P16 revision petitions within four months, applying deemed bond execution law.

Sreepriya.P., Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SREEPRIYA.P., AGED 36 YEARS W/O P.S. SREENIVASAN NAMBOOTHIRI, POTTILLAM, PURACHERY, EZHILODE P.O.,

¶9

KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670309.

¶10

2 NAVYA.P, EDACHERIYAN HOUSE, PADIYIL, P.O. CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670301.

¶11

3 BINDU.K.P, KALATHIL HOUSE, C. POYIL. P.O., AMMANAPPARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670502.

¶12

BY ADV V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

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

¶15

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶16

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

¶17

KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001.

¶18

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141.

¶19

5 THE MANAGER, IRINGAL AUP SCHOOL,

¶20

C. POYIL POST, PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670502.

¶21

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioners are working as LPSAs in the Iringal AUP School, Pariyaram. According to the petitioners, their appointment was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011. Seeking approval of appointment from the initial date, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and command the 1st respondent to adjudicate Exhibits P14 to P16 revision petitions forthwith after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

¶28

ii) to declare that as evident from Exhibits P11 to P13 the law involved in the matter is settled and therefore, petitioners are also entitled to get equal treatment by approving their appointment from the date of their original appointment reflected in Exhibits P1, P5 and P8 appointment orders.

¶29

It is contended by the petitioners that the Government had, as per G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.08.2005, 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 12.01.2010, the ban on appointments was lifted subject to certain conditions. One among the conditions was that the Managers should execute a consent letter undertaking that in future vacancies, protected teachers equal to the

¶30

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

number of teachers appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, 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 petitioners were also included in the package and their appointment was regularized with effect from 01.06.2011. According to the petitioners, 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. The petitioners contend that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioners have preferred Exts P14 to P16 revision petitions before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision petitions.

¶33

Sri.V.N Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 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.

¶34

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

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 12.01.2010, 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.

¶37

I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioners were appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.01.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioners was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 on the ground that there was a ban on appointments at the time of their 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

¶38

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ 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:

¶42

a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P14 to P16 revision petitions filed by the petitioners with notice to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Suma Devi (supra) and Exts P11 to P13. 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.

¶43

b) While considering the representation, the Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon that the manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and also

¶44

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

c) It would be open to the petitioners to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

IAP

¶53

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022 7

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16674/2022

¶55

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶56

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 21-7-2008 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AS LPSA.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.C2735/08/K.DIS DATED 18-8-2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/C/1903/09 DATED 5-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/474/10/K.DIS DATED 3-7-2010 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEO, KANNUR.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1-6-2009 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AS LPSA.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER, K.DIS/C/1899/09 DATED 5-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AEO, TALIPARAMBA NORTH.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/475/10/ K.DIS DATED 3-7-2010 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEO, KANNUR.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1-6-2009 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER AS LPSA.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO. K.DIS/C/1901 DATED 5-12-2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AEO, TALIPARAMBA NORTH.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/478/10/K.DIS DATED 29.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEO, KANNUR.

¶57

WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

¶58

¶59

Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-6-2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 17325 OF 2019.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(P) NO. 4998/2019/G.EDN DATED 21-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/3602/19/AEO/A DATED 6-8-2020 ISSUE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 7-4-2022 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 A	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 13-4-2022.
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 7-4-2022 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15 A	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 13-4-2022.
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 7-4-2022 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16 A	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 13-4-2022.

¶60

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶61

NIL

Sreepriya.P., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreepriya.P., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishnan T B Vs the State of Kerala

Biji Venugopal, Vs State of Kerala

T. Asokan Vs Chief Engineer

The Centre for Environment Architecture and Human Settlements Private Limited [Cearth] Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Samuel Vs Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

Palm Product Workers Union Vs State of Kerala