High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-01-10The writ petition is disposed of.

Aboobacker Sideeque V.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.5960 of 2022

Neutral Citation: ull

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2023-01-10
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (a) The 1st respondent to consider Exts P14 and P15 revision petitions with notice to petitioners and 5th respondent, and pass orders within four months, guided by the law in Exhibit P11; (b) While considering the representation, reckon that the manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and that appointments from the protected-teacher list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period must be made; (c) Petitioners may submit a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment for further action. The orders shall be subject to final orders of the Apex Court in pending petitions.
Final Disposition: The writ petition is disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aboobacker Sideeque V.P.
Saleena.P.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Director of General Education, Office of the Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram-695014
The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Tirur, Malappuram District-676101
Assistant Educational Officer, Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Vengara, Malappuram District-676304
The Manager, A.M.L.P.School, Thottasseriara, K.M.West Post, Vengara, Malappuram District-676305

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDUL KAREEM

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, two teaching staff (a Lower Primary School Assistant and an Arabic Teacher), challenge the denial of approval for their appointments in A.M.L.P.School, Thottasseriara. They were first appointed during a ban period created by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn (12.01.2010); their approvals were granted only from 1.6.2011 after the ban and following the introduction of a Teachers’ Package. The petitioners contend that, notwithstanding the non-execution of bonds by the manager, the bond should be deemed executed and the manager obliged to effect appointments from the protected-teacher list equal in number to posts approved during the ban. They have filed revision petitions (Exts P14 and P15) and seek directions to the 1st respondent to consider them in light of settled precedents. The respondents’ counsel counters that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that a bond should have been executed if a protected-teacher appointment was not made, noting ongoing challenges to G.O.(P) No.10/10 and pending Supreme Court matters. The court relies on the Suma Devi precedent, disposing the petition with directions to consider the revision petitions within four months, while deeming bonds to be effectively executed and ensuring proportional appointments, subject to final Apex Court orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010G.O.(P) No. 317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.08.2005G.O(P)NO.4/2021/G.EDN.DATED 06/02/2021

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

In cases where managers have not executed bonds, the bonds should be deemed to have been executed (State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors).
Appointments to be made from the list of protected teachers in numbers equal to the posts approved during the ban period.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that appointment during the ban, though bond-not-executed, should be treated as if the bond were executed, following the settled principle in State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors, which obliges managers to make appointments from the protected-teacher list equal to posts approved during the ban. They urge the 1st respondent to consider Exts P14 and P15 revision petitions in light of that precedent and issue directions expeditiously (within four months). They emphasize that the period from 1.6.2011 marks the validity of approvals after lifting the ban and that delays caused injustice; they request that the copy of the writ petition along with the judgment be produced before the concerned respondents for action.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader submits that, per G.O.(P) No.10/10 and subsequent policies, all appointments in additional division vacancies are to be allotted 1:1, and if a bond was not executed, the Manager should have done so. It is noted that some managers have challenged G.O.(P) No.10/10, and those matters are pending before the Supreme Court. The respondents argue that the petition should await the Apex Court’s final orders and adhere to the applicable rules; the orders should be subject to final orders in pending litigation and consistent with the policy framework.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors	W.A.No.2111/2015	Positive	Relied upon to hold that non-execution of bonds by Managers should be deemed executed, obliging them to make equal numbers of appointments—integral to the petition's remedy and to the directive for future appointments.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aboobacker Sideeque V.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 5960 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1ABOOBACKER SIDEEQU V.P AGED 34 YEARS LPSA, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, THOTTASSERIARA, K.M.WEST POST, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676305. 2SALEENA.P, AGED 33 YEARS ARABIC TEACHER,A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, THOTTASSERIARA, K.M.WEST POST, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676305. ``` ``` BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDUL KAREEM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.` - `2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.` - `3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.` W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 2 ``` 4ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676304. ``` ``` 5THE MANAGER, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, THOTTASSERIARA, K.M.WEST POST, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676305. ``` ``` SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON10.01.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT** 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 W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 4 respondent and request that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and take a decision. 2. 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. 3. 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 W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 5 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. 4. 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 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. W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 6 5. 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: - 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. - 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 W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 7 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. - 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. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5960/2022`** ``` PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS: ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE 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 P5TRUE 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 P9TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS.D/6422/07 DATED 10/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ``` W.P.(C) No.5960 of 2022 9 ``` 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 P17TRUE 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. ```