Allowed

Sruthi.K.v v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2023WP(C)/1306/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Lower Primary School Assistant seeking appointment regularization. Court directed respondent to consider representation and pass orders within four months, deeming the bond executed as per settled precedents, subject to pending Apex Court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation, take decision expeditiously within four months, treating the bond as deemed executed.

Sruthi.K.v Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

MONDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SRUTHI.K.V AGED 32 YEARS D/O. P.KUNHIRAMAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, RAMAGURU UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR - 11 RESIDING AT SRUTHILAYAM, PERUMACHERRY P.O., KOLACHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN - 670601

¶10

BY ADVS. K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR K.K.CHANDRALEKHA ANUPAMA JOHNY K.S.SUDHA VISMAYA VENUGOPAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR, PIN - 670001

¶15

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670561

¶16

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

5 THE MANAGER RAMAGURU UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670011

¶19

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner states that she is now working as a Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) in Ramaguru Upper Primary School, Chirakkal, from 01.06.2010 onwards. She states that her approval was granted only with effect from 01.06.2011 by including her in the teachers’ package. According to the petitioner, the approval for the period from 01.06.2010 to 31.05.2011 stands rejected on the ground that the Manager has failed to execute the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10 dated 12.01.2010. The petitioner states that raising her contentions, she has preferred Ext.P11 representation before the 1st respondent and requests that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and take a decision.

¶25

Sri. K.K.Chandralekha, 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 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. The learned counsel submits that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11

¶26

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

in the light of the settled precedents.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 12.01.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioner was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 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

¶31

Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors . [judgment dated 01.08.2017 in W.A.No.2111/2015], has held that in the case of non-execution of the bond

¶32

by the Managers, it should be deemed that bonds have been executed and

¶33

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶34

¶35

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 in the pending litigation.

¶36

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:

¶37

a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P11 representation filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Exhibit P10 judgment. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

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 that they would

¶39

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

IAP

¶49

WP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1306/2023

¶52

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01.06.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(P) NO.817/2001/FIN. DATED 11.06.2001
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(P) NO.303/2001/G.EDN. DATED 05.10.2001
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(P) NO.377/2001/G.EDN. DATED 28/12/2001
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(P) NO.317/2005/G.EDN. DATED 17.08.2005
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(P) NO.10/10/G.EDN. DATED 12-01-2010
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 23.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(P) NO.199/2016/G.EDN. DATED 03.12.2016
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2017 IN W.A.NO.2592/2015
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDE	NTS'	EXHIBITS: NIL

Sruthi.K.v v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sruthi.K.v 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

State of Kerala Vs a J Honey Sweet

The Manager Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Asha Chandran Vs State of Kerala

The Manager( Iype Varghese) Vs State of Kerala

Ummer P.K Vs State of Kerala Represented by Secretary to Government

The Corporate Manager Vs State of Kerala