Allowed

Soncy P. Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Oct 2022WP(C)/4903/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed orders rejecting the petitioner's appointment as UPSA due to the school manager's failure to execute a bond. The Court applied Suma Devi jurisprudence, deeming the bond executed, and directed the authorities to approve the appointment with effect from 01.06.2010.

What did the court decide?

Orders Exts. P2, P4, and P8 were quashed. The petitioner was directed to succeed. The 4th respondent was ordered to reconsider the representation and pass fresh orders within eight weeks.

Soncy P. Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SONCY P. JOSEPH AGED 32 YEARS W/O. ELDHO ISSAC, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, MUDAKKUZHA P.O., VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 546, NOW WORKING AS UPSA, MAR KAUMA H.S.S., VENGOOR, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS. N.K.KARNIS SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014

¶14

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 035

¶15

4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686 691

¶16

5 THE MANAGER MAR KAUMA H.S.S., VENGOOR, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 546

¶17

SMT ANIMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P1 to P4, P6 and P8 and for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA at Mar Kauma H.S.S, Vengoor with effect from 01.06.2010 and to grant consequential benefits.

¶23

2. Brief facts of the case are as under.

¶24

According to the petitioner, she was initially appointed as a Full-Time Menial on 22.04.2009 in the Mar Kauma H.S.S Vengoor, an aided school under the management of the 5th respondent and governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Later, by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was promoted as UPSA with effect from 01.06.2010 in the vacancy left behind by Smt. S.Suja Paul, UPSA, who was promoted as HSA. Ext.P1 would show that the appointment of the petitioner as probationary UPSA with effect from 01.06.2011 till the vacancy

¶25

exists was granted on a scale of pay basis and on the basis of the declaration furnished by the Manager. According to the petitioner, the proposal for approval of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P2 order on the ground that the Manager has not executed a bond in terms of the G.O.(P)

¶26

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

No.10/10/Gen. Edn dated 12.01.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that challenging the said order, he preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the Deputy Director. However, by Ext.P4 order dated 06.12.2011, the appeal was returned, and directions were issued to resubmit the proposal for the appointment before the DEO, Kothamangalam.

¶29

The petitioner points out that the aforesaid Suja Paul, in whose promotion vacancy the petitioner was appointed, also faced the same situation. Her proposal was also rejected for non-execution of the bond by the Manager. The said Suja Paul, along with one Eldho, had approached this Court and had preferred W.P.(C) No.13734/2018, and by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had disposed of the matter holding that Suja Paul was entitled to be approved with effect from 01.06.2010 by deeming that the Manager has executed the bond and on being satisfied with the existence of vacancy to accommodate the said teacher.

¶30

The petitioner contends that in the light of Ext.P5 judgment,

¶31

Ext.P6 order has been issued by the DEO granting approval of the appointment of Suja Paul by invoking the deeming provision. Immediately thereafter, pointing out that Suja Paul has been granted approval, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 before the DEO. It is pointed out that by Ext.P8 order, the proposal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any appellate orders. The petitioner contends that the

¶32

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

issue raised in this writ petition is covered by a judgment rendered by this Court, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P9. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Though notice was served to the 5th respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance.

¶36

I have considered the submissions advanced. I find from Ext.P2 order dated 17.9.2011 that the proposal for approval of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2010 was rejected on the sole ground that the Manager had not executed the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. 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 are approved.In that view of the matter, the impugned order to the extent to which it concerns the petitioner cannot be sustained. Ext.P7 will have to be reconsidered in light of the law laid down by this

¶37

Court in Suma Devi. I also find that Suja Paul in whose vacancy the petitioner was appointed was also denied approval and pursuant to the

¶38

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

directions issued by this Court, Ext.P6 order has been passed granting approval with effect from 1.6.2010. In that view of the matter, I am not in a position to sustain Ext.P8 order. The DEO shall reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶41

Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Exts.P2, P4,

¶42

and P8 will stand quashed.

¶43

There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider Ext. P7 representation and pass fresh orders taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Suma Devi (supra). Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with due notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent. While considering the revision petition, the Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon that the Manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and also 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.

¶44

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.

¶45

It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

¶46

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶47

¶48

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

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

IAP

¶54

WP(C) NO. 4903 OF 2020

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4903/2020

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DA	APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE TED 21.06.2010
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH 17.09.2011
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	APPEAL OF THE 5TH 22.10.2011
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER OF THE 3RD 03.12.2011
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COURT IN W.P.(C) 18.02.2019	JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE NO.13734/2018 DATED
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER OF THE 4TH 13.08.2019
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	REPRESENTATION OF THE NIL
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER OF THE 4TH 29.01.2020
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE COURT DAT W.P.(C)NO.26336/2	JUDGMENT OF THIS ED 19-02-2018 IN 017

¶59

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Soncy P. Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soncy P. Joseph 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

Abdulssalam P.N. Vs State of Kerala

Princy A.J Vs the State of Kerala

Reshma S. Vs the Regional Deputy Director

Merlin K.U. Vs State of Kerala

Siji M.P. Vs State of Kerala

V.Haridas Vs State of Kerala