Allowed

Sismi Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2022WP(C)/7786/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge directed the Secretary to Government to expeditiously decide the petitioner's revision petition treating managerial non-execution of bond as deemed executed, pursuant to settled law, subject to Supreme Court's pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to consider revision petition within 3 months treating bond execution as deemed; subject to Apex Court orders.

Sismi Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 4THDAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 7786 OF 2022

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

SISMI THOMAS
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, ST. MARTIN'S UPS NEENDAKARA,
EZHUPUNNA P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 537
FORMERLY UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
SMSJHS THYCATTUSSERY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 528.

¶5

BY ADVS.
P.M.PAREETH
AISWARYA VENUGOPAL
NAJEEB P.S

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶8

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶9

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 524.

¶10

4 MANAGER SMSJHS THYCATTUSSERY, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 524

¶11

SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶12

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 7786 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner states that she entered into service as a UPST with effect from 6.8.2008 at SMSJHS, Thycattussery. She is now working at St.Martin’s UPS Neendakara under the same management. The appointment was not approved because of the ban against appointments prevailing during that time even though she was continuing. Her grievance in this writ petition concerns the non-approval of her appointment from 6.8.2008 to 31.5.2011.

¶17

It is contended by the petitioner that the Government had, as per G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.8.2005, 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 12.1.2010, 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 number of teachers, appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10, 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

¶18

WP(C) NO. 7786 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

teacher’s package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. According to the petitioner, 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 petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision petition.

¶21

Sri.P.M.Pareeth, 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 teachers, equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader submitted that all

¶23

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 12.1.2010, 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.

¶24

WP(C) NO. 7786 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

It is further submitted that some of the Managers have challenged G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. It is submitted that if the limited request is only to consider the revision petition, there cannot be any impediment.

¶27

In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the party respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioner was appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioner was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 on the ground that there was a ban on appointments at the time of her 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

¶29

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. 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

¶30

WP(C) NO. 7786 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

in the pending litigation.

¶33

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:

¶34

a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and take a decision, 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

b) While considering the revision petition, the Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon that the Managers 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. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be

¶36

WP(C) NO. 7786 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

subject to the final orders passed by the Apex Court in the pending petitions.

¶39

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.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶42

sru

¶43

WP(C) NO. 7786 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7786/2022

¶46

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶47

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `01-06-2010 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION` `ORDER NO. B5-1299/2010 DATED 13-08-2010 FOR THE` `YEAR 2008-09 OF SMSJHS, THYCATTUSSERY ISSUED BY` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION ORDER` `NO. B5-3799/2009 DATED 03-11-2009 FOR THE YEAR` `2009-10 OF SMSJHS, THYCATTUSSERY ISSUED BY THE` `3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION` `ORDER NO. B5/5276/2010/2009 DATED 09-09-2010` `FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 OF SMSJHS, THYCATTUSSERY` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `15-06-2015 IN W.P(C)NO. 32727/2011.`
`Exhibit P5A`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `24-07-2017 IN W.A NO. 931/2016`
`Exhibit P5B`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `18-02-2015 IN W.P(C) NO. 4643/2012`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.` `B5-3450/2009/L.DIS DATED 27-10-2010 ISSUED BY` `THE THIRD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED` `24-02-2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `FIRST RESPONDENT.`

¶48

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

Sismi Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sismi Thomas 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

Jyothi M Vs State of Kerala

K.B.Krishnaraj Vs State of Kerala

Fr.Johny Sebastian, Vs the State of Kerala

Abhaya .K.S Vs the State of Kerala

Ajeesh B., Vs the State of Kerala

Secretary,Corporate Management of Schools Under the Society of the Order of Sacred Transfiguration Vs State of Kerala