Disposed

Aboobacker Sideequ V.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2023WP(C)/5960/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondents to dispose of revision petitions regarding teachers appointed during a government ban period. The judgment ruled that managers are deemed to have executed bonds, obliging them to make equal appointments from protected teachers, subject to pending Apex Court litigations.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on revision petitions filed by petitioners within four months, reckoning that the manager would be deemed to have executed

Aboobacker Sideequ V.P Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 5960 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

1ABOOBACKER SIDEEQU V.P
AGED 34 YEARS
LPSA, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, THOTTASSERIARA,
K.M.WEST POST, VENGARA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676305.

¶6

2SALEENA.P,
AGED 33 YEARS
ARABIC TEACHER,A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, THOTTASSERIARA,
K.M.WEST POST,
VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676305.

¶7

BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDUL KAREEM

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.

¶12

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 2

¶13

4ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
VENGARA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676304.

¶14

5THE MANAGER,
A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, THOTTASSERIARA, K.M.WEST POST,
VENGARA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676305.

¶15

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON10.01.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 3

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The 1st petitioner states that after working as a leave substitute in A.L.P School, Thottasseri, for some time, he was appointed with effect from 15.12.2009 onwards as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) in the said school. However, the proposal for approval which was submitted by the 5th respondent was rejected on the ground that the manager has not executed the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2002. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Arabic Teacher by the 5th respondent with effect from 01.06.2010 in the additional division vacancy created during 2007-2008. The proposal for approval was declined on the ground that the Manager has not executed the bond. Later, the approvals were granted with effect from 1.6.2011 when the economic ban imposed in terms of G.O (P) No. 317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.8.2005 was lifted and the 1st respondent introduced a Teachers’ Package. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is with regard to the non-grant of approval from the initial period of appointment till 1.6.2011. The petitioners assert that they have preferred Exts. P14 and P15 revision petitions before the 1st

¶20

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 4

¶21

respondent and request that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and take a decision.

¶22

Sri. P.P Abdul Kareem, 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. The learned counsel submits that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Exts P14 and P15 revision petitions in the light of the settled precedents.

¶23

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 12.1.2010, 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. It is further submitted that some

¶24

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 5

¶25

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.

¶26

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 12.1.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioners were approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 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

¶27

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. 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.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 6

¶29

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in

¶30

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:

¶31

a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exts P14 and P15 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 Exhibit P11 judgment. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

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 be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved

¶33

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 7

¶34

during the ban period. It is made clear that the

¶35

orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶41

IAP

¶42

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 8

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5960/2022

¶44

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

¶45

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `06/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `TO THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.K.DIS.B4/5886/2011 DATED 04/08/2011` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `15/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/1104/09 DATED` `08/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `01/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1/1751/11` `K.DIS.DATED 04/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION` `ORDER NO.D.DIS.D/3040/10(4) DATED` `24/05/2010 FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 ISSUED BY` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `01/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `TO THE 2ND PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER` `NO.D.DIS.D/6422/07 DATED 10/12/2007` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`

¶46

W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 9

¶47

`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER` `NO.60930/J2/G.EDN.DATED 25/10/2011 ISSUED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/7/2017` `IN W.A.NO.2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR` `NO.100/J2/2017/G.EDN.DATED 11/9/2018` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `G.O(P)NO.4/2021/G.EDN.DATED 06/02/2021` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED` `10/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED` `10/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `31/01/2022 IN WP(C)NO.3057/2022 PASSED BY` `THIS HON'BLE COURT`
`Exhibit P17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER` `NO.D.DIS.D/4742/10 DATED 28/08/2010 FOR` `THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT.`

Aboobacker Sideequ V.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker Sideequ V.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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev K.R Vs State of Kerala

Thrissur District Association of the Deaf Vs Superintendent

Shibu P.S. Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director

The Principal Vs State of Kerala

Manager, Chettiyath Up School Vs Sindhu K K

The Manager Vs State of Kerala