Allowed

Santhi Krishna G.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023WP(C)/7188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State to consider a protected teacher's representation filed under the provisions of the relevant Government Order, treating the Manager's bond as deemed executed, while noting that the decision remains subject to pending Apex Court rulings.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within four months, treating the bond as executed and subjecting the order to pending Apex Court litigation.

Santhi Krishna G.S Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SANTHI KRISHNA G.S AGED 33 YEARS D/O GOPALAKRISHNAN P, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (ENGLISH), C P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 534.

¶10

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM AT THEVALLY-691 009

¶15

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 305.

¶16

5 THE MANAGER C P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 534.

¶17

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner states that she was appointed as HST in the C P Higher Secondary School, Kuttikkadu, 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.P6 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. M. Sajjad, 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.P6 in the light of the settled

¶26

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

precedents.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader submitted that all

¶30

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 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.

¶31

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 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

¶32

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022 5

¶33

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.

¶34

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:

¶35

a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 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 Exhibits P3 and P4 judgments. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

b) While considering the representation, the Secretary to

¶37

Government shall be free to reckon that the manager

¶38

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

IAP

¶47

WP(C) NO. 7188 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7188/2022

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶51

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2010 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO B6/3119/10/K.DIS DATED 7.10.2020 OF THE DEO, PUNALUR Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO 2290/2015 DATED 25.7.2015 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO. 2091/2018 DATED 28.6.2019 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 60930/J2/11/G.EDN DATED 25.10.2011 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MOVED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 3.7.2021 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 23193/2021 DATED 11.11.2021 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 3216/2022 DATED 1.2.2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 35602/2019 DATED 14.2.2022

¶52

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶53

NIL

Santhi Krishna G.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhi Krishna G.S 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

Sheeba Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Raji.K Vs State of Kerala

Roy B. Vs Shri. Ajay Kumar Bhalla IAS

Yusaff Eranoth, Vs the State of Kerala

Indian Red Cross Society, Vs State of Kerala

V.Devika (Minor), Vs Regional Officer