High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-10-12Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

BINDU R., H.S.A. (SOCIAL SCIENCE) and others v. STATE OF KERALA and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2021-10-12
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P6 to P11 revision petitions within three months, with notice to the petitioners and the 5th respondent, following the law laid down in Suma Devi. Managers would be deemed to have executed the bond, and they must appoint from the list of protected teachers an equal number of appointments as those approved during the ban period; the orders passed shall be subject to the final orders of the Supreme Court in pending petitions. It would be open to petitioners to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondents for further action.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BINDU R., H.S.A. (SOCIAL SCIENCE), Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, Palakkad
DEEPTHI K., H.S.A. (ENGLISH), Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, Palakkad
BEENA V.K., H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, Palakkad
VIDHYA P., H.S.A. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), Sabari Higher Secondary School, Pallikkuruppu, Palakkad-678582
RATHNAKUMARI A., H.S.A. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, Palakkad-679503
USHA M., H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, Palakkad-679503

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad
District Educational Officer, Mannarkad, Palakkad
The Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Sabari Higher Secondary School and Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Abraham
• Joby D. Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Bijoy Chandran, Sr Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners—six teachers serving as High School Assistants (HSAs) in Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, Palakkad—seek approval of their appointments from the original dates of appointment rather than from 1.6.2011, when a government ban on appointments in additional division vacancies was lifting. They rely on government orders, particularly the sequence of bans and liftings, and the comprehensive teacher’s package (G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn) that regularised protected teachers, to argue that their appointments should be deemed approved from the time of appointment and that managers should be bound to appoint from the protected list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The petition also references earlier High Court judgments holding that bonds need not be executed explicitly by managers; instead, the bond is deemed to have been executed and the corresponding appointments must be made. The government pleader contends that appointments in such vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that bonds or pending Supreme Court matters must be considered before granting relief. The learned Judge, relying on the Suma Devi line of authority, directs consideration of petitioners’ revision petitions (Exts. P6–P11) within three months, treats managers as having executed the bond, and requires appointments from the protected list to match the number of approvals during the ban period, subject to final Apex Court orders. The petition is disposed of with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O (P) No.317/2005/G.Edn dated 17.8.2005G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn dated 12.1.2010G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.10.2011GO(RT) No.4018/2021/G.EDN dated 13/09/2021

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bond deemed to have been executed by the Manager in the absence of an explicit execution
Managers obliged to appoint from the protected list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period
Judicial endorsement of earlier Kerala High Court rulings (Suma Devi) on deemed bonds and protected appointments

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that even without a bond being executed by the Manager, the bond should be deemed executed and the Managers would be obliged to make appointments from the protected list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period; relying on earlier decisions of this Court that directed approval from the date of appointment, the petitioners sought a direction to the 1st respondent to approve Exts.P6–P11 from their dates of appointment and to ensure proper application of the protective appointments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that if a manager fails to execute the bond as per G.O.(P) No.10/10, the manager should have done so; they argued that matters pending in the Supreme Court should not be used to deny relief and that revision petitions could be considered within the scope of the government orders.

Cited Precedents (2)

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 decision to hold that bonds not executed by managers are deemed executed and that protected appointments should be made in proportion to approvals during the ban period.
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors	WA 332 of 2017	Positive	Division Bench affirmations of the deemed-execution principle and proportional appointments, cited to support the current directions.

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 BINDU R., H.S.A. (SOCIAL SCIENCE) and others 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. 21963 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 20TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 BINDU R., H.S.A. (SOCIAL SCIENCE), SABARI PTB SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ADAKKAPUTHUR, PALAKKAD. 2 DEEPTHI K., H.S.A. (ENGLISH), SABARI PTB SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ADAKKAPUTHUR, PALAKKAD. 3 BEENA V.K., H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), SABARI PTB SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ADAKKAPUTHUR, PALAKKAD. 4 VIDHYA P., H.S.A. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), SABARI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALLIKURUPPU, PALAKKAD-678582. 5 RATHNAKUMARI A., H.S.A. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) SABARI PTB SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ADAKKAPUTHUR, PALAKKAD-679503. 6 USHA M., H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), SABARI PTB SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ADAKKAPUTHUR, PALAKKAD-679503. BY ADVS. GEORGE ABRAHAM JOBY D JOSEPH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. **WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** **2** 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD-679582. 5 THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, SABARI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND SABARI PTB SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ADAKKAPUTHUR VIA, PALAKKAD-679503. SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they were all appointed as HSAs in the Sabari PTB Smaraka High School, Adakkaputhur, an aided school under the management of the 5th respondent. Their grievance is that the approval of their appointments was granted only with effect from 1.6.2011. The petitioners are before this Court seeking approval of their appointment from the original date of their appointment. 2. The petitioners contend that the Government had, as per G.O (P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.8.2005, imposed a ban on the appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff in additional division vacancies. Later, by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, the ban on appointments was lifted subject to certain conditions. One among the conditions was that the Managers should execute a consent letter undertaking that in future vacancies, protected teachers equal to the number of teachers, appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10, would be appointed. The 5th respondent failed to execute the bond as required in the Government Order. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.10.2011 approving **WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** **4** the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher’s package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioners were also included in the package and their appointment was regularised with effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioners, teachers similarly placed as them had approached this Court and by various judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to approve the appointment from the date of appointment by deeming that the manager has executed the bond. The petitioners contend that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P6 to P11 revision petitions before the 1st respondent. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners are before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to approve the appointments of the petitioners as HSAs from their date of appointment to 31.5.2011 and for a further direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P6 to P11 statutory revision petitions. 3. Dr.George Abraham, 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 Manager, 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. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that all **WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** **5** 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 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. It is submitted that if the limited request is only to consider the revision petition, there cannot be any impediment. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. 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 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. 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 this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions: **WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** **6** - a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up consider and pass orders on Exhibits P6 to P11 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 **Suma Devi** (supra). Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - b) While considering the revision petition, the Secretary to Government shall bear in mind that the Managers 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. The fact that the petition challenging G.O.(P) No.10/10 filed by the Managers is pending consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall not be taken as a ground to deny the benefits to the petitioners. 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 **WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** **7** writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** DSV **WP(C) NO. 21963 OF 2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21963/2021** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2009. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2009. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2009. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2010. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.22382/2020 DATED 20/10/2020. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 25/09/2021. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 25/09/2021. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 25/09/2021. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 25/09/2021. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 25/09/2021. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 25/09/2021. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4018/2021/G.EDN. DATED 13/09/2021. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL