High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-09-01Petition allowed; Ext.P10 set aside; respondent...

B. Sufija v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2021-09-01
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P10 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P7 revision petition in accordance with procedure and law, providing an opportunity of hearing. While re-considering, the 1st respondent shall deem that the Manager executed the bond and that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected hands to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The order shall be passed expeditiously, within three months from production of a copy of this judgment, subject to final orders of the Supreme Court in the petition filed by the Managers.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; Ext.P10 set aside; respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 as per law and with hearing; deem bond execution; appoint from protected hands to the extent of appointments approved during the ban; to be completed within three months, subject to Supreme Court final orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

B. Sufija

Respondents

THE STATE OF KERALA represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat Annexe - II, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM - 691 001
THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 305
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691534
THE MANAGER, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534
THE HEADMASTER, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.A. Muhammed
• M. Sajjad Venugopal K.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Nisha Bose, Sr Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, B. Sufija, was appointed as a LPSA in the SKV Lower Primary School, Kuriyode, Kollam, against an anticipated vacancy on 06.06.2006, but her appointment was not approved due to a ban. She sought approval from the initial date with all consequential benefits via Ext.P7 revision petition. The Government rejected it (Ext.P10) on the ground that the Manager had not executed a bond. The petitioner contends that, as settled by this Court in earlier decisions, managers are deemed to have executed the bond even if not signed, and must make appointments from the list of protected hands equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The Respondents argue that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned in a 1:1 ratio and that a bond must be executed according to GO (P) No.10/10/G.Edn. If challenged, those matters are before the Supreme Court. The Court relied on the State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors (W.A.2111/2015) and WA.No.332/2017, which held that non-execution of a bond by Managers should be treated as if bonds were executed and that Managers must appoint from protected hands. The Court set aside Ext.P10, directed reconsideration of Ext.P7, deemed that the Manager executed the bond, and ordered appointment from protected hands as many as those approved during the ban, subject to final Supreme Court orders, and to be completed within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Deemed execution of bonds by managers in the absence of formal bond execution
Equality in appointment from protected hands: number of appointments equal to those approved during the ban period
1:1 apportionment principle for additional vacancies during ban period (as per prior Benches)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the principle now settled is that even if a Manager has not executed a bond, it is to be deemed that the bond has been executed, obliging the Manager to appoint from the protected hands the same number of candidates as those approved during the ban period. Ext.P10 denying relief is unsustainable, since Ext.P8’s directions and subsequent decisions require deeming bond execution and corresponding appointments, and Ext.P7 should be reconsidered consistent with law and due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned in a 1:1 ratio, and if a protected hand’s appointment is not made as per GO 10/10/2010, a bond must be executed; several managers have challenged GO 10/10/2010 in Supreme Court, and some cases are pending.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors	W.A.No.2111/2015	Positive	Court relies on this Division Bench decision to adopt the doctrine that non-execution of bonds by Managers should be treated as if bonds were executed, obliging appointment of protected hands in relation to approved vacancies.
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors	WA.No.332 of 2017	Positive	Cited for the same principle as above, reinforcing the deemed bond execution doctrine and the obligation to appoint from protected hands.
W.A.No.2290/2015	W.A.No.2290/2015	Positive	Exhibit P5 judgment cited as supportive precedent for deemed bond execution in similar contexts.
W.A.No.2091/2018	W.A.No.2091/2018	Positive	Exhibit P6 judgment cited as supportive precedent for the same principle.

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 B. Sufija v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** B. SUFIJA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. FIROZ KHAN, LPSA, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534., (RESIDING AT FIROZ SADANAM, VETTANCHIRA, POREDAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534). BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD VENUGOPAL.K ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM - 691 001. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 305. **WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021** **2** - 5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691534. - 6 THE MANAGER, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534. - 7 THE HEADMASTER, SKV LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KURIYODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 534. SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that she was appointed as LPSA in the SKV Lower Primary School, Kuriyode, an aided school, under the management of the 6th respondent against an anticipated additional vacancy w.e.f 06.06.2006. In view of the ban order prevailing at that point of time, her appointment was not approved from the initial date. Seeking approval of appointment from 06.06.2006 with all consequential benefits, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the Government. Pursuant to orders issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner was heard and her request was rejected on the sole ground that no specific directions were issued by this Court to proceed as if the manager is deemed to have executed the bond. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs. - (i) call for the records relating to Exhibits-P2, P3, P4 and P10 and set aside the originals of the same to the extent they deny approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. **WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021** ## **4** - (ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval to the appointment with effect from the initial date of appointment, i.e., 06.06.2006 onwards. - (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment.” 2. 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 Manager, the Managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected hands, equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The learned counsel points out that Ext.P10 order has been passed denying the prayer sought for on the sole ground that this Court while rendering Ext.P8 judgment had not ordered that the Manager would be deemed to have executed the bond. 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 hand 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 **WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 5** 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 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. 5. 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] and in the judgment dated 9.8.2019 in WA.No.332 of 2017 and connected cases have 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. A mere perusal of Ext.P10 order passed by the 1st respondent would reveal that the main reason for rejecting the claim is the non-execution of the bond by the manager. I am of the opinion that having regard to the view taken by this Court in identical cases, the respondent was bound to pass orders by deeming that the Managers had executed the bond and also that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected hands equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. **WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 6** 6. 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 the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 1. Ext.P10 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. 2. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 revision petition as per procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law. An opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, shall be afforded to the petitioner or her authorised representative, the Manager as well as affected parties, if any. 3. While considering the revision petition, the 1st respondent shall deem that the Manager executed the bond and also that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected hands to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. Needless to mention, the order passed as aforesaid would be subject to the final orders to be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the petition filed by the Managers. 4. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in **WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 7** any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** DSV **WP(C) NO. 16040 OF 2021 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16040/2021** PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06.06.2006. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/2456/2006/L.DIS. DATED 14.11.2006 ADDRESSING THE MANAGER BY THE AEO, CHADAYAMANGALAM. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/7646/06/K.DIS. DATED 20.03.2007 OF THE DEO, PUNALUR. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/27914/06 K.DIS DATED 14.02.2007 OF THE DDE, KOLLAM. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.05.2020, (WITHOUT EXHIBITS). Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.13003/2020 DATED 30.06.2020. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.B1/163/20/G.EDN. DATED 04.11.2020. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3129/2021/G.EDN. DATED 24.06.2021. RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL