High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-01-13Disposed of

BYJU S v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2023-01-13
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (a) The 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision petition with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent and pass orders within four months, taking note of law laid down by this Court in Exhibits P4 and P5 judgments; (b) while considering Ext.P7, reckon that the manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period; (c) orders shall be subject to final orders of the Apex Court in the pending petitions; (d) petitioner may produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment for further action by the concerned respondent.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BYJU S

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat Annex II, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014
The Deputy Director of Education, Kollam @ Thevally-691 009
The District Educational Officer, Civil Station, Kollam District-691 013
The Assistant Educational Officer, Chathannoor, Kollam District-691 572
The Manager, Kunhi Krishna Pillai Memorial U.P. School, Varinjam, Edanadu P O, Kollam District-691579

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.A. Muhammed
• V. Rajasekharan Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, BYJU S, was appointed as a regular Part Time Lower Grade Arabic Teacher at Kunhi Krishna Pillai Memorial U.P. School, Varinjam, an aided institution, with effect from 01.06.2009 against an additional anticipated post sanctioned during 2009-2010. His appointment was approved only from 01.06.2011, on the ground that a ban on appointments was in force at the time of his initial appointment and the manager had not executed a bond as required by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. The petitioner filed Ext.P7, a revision petition seeking directions to consider the petition and grant approval for the period 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2011. The petitioner’s counsel argued that, as a settled principle, even where managers had not executed bonds, they would be deemed to have executed them and would be obliged to appoint from the list of protected teachers, equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The Government Pleader contended that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned in a 1:1 ratio and that any manager failing to execute a bond should have done so, with some matters pending before the Apex Court. The court relied on earlier Kerala judgments (P4, P5) and a Division Bench decision (Suma Devi) to dispose of the petition by directing consideration of Ext.P7, reckon deemed bonds, and ensure appointments from protected lists, subject to final Apex Court orders, with a four-month deadline for action.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010G.O.(P) No.4/2021/G.EDN. dated 06.02.2021

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bonds deemed to have been executed by managers in case of non-execution
Equal number of appointments to protected teachers to be made when appointments to additional vacancies during the ban period are approved
Orders subject to final orders of the Apex Court in pending petitions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that, even where bonds were not executed, the Managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and would be obliged to appoint from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period; seeks directions that Ext.P7 be considered in light of settled precedents.

Contentions of Respondents

Government contends that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that managers who did not execute bonds should have done so; notes that several matters challenging GO 10/10 are pending before the Apex Court.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors.	W.A.No.2111/2015	Positive	Division Bench held that where bonds are not executed, they are deemed to have been executed and managers must appoint an equal number of protected teachers when appointments during the ban period are approved; cited as a governing principle for the present case.
W.A. No. 2290/2015	W.A. No. 2290/2015	Positive	Judgment cited as Exhibits P4; used to support the binding law on bonds/deemed execution in the context of appointments during a ban.
W.A. No. 2091/2018	W.A. No. 2091/2018	Positive	Judgment cited as Exhibits P5; reinforces the jurisprudence regarding bonds and protected appointments during ban periods.

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 BYJU S 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.

**WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** BYJU S AGED 43 YEARS SON OF SULAIMAN, ARABIC TEACHER (FULL TIME), KUNHI KRISHNA PILLAI MEMORIAL U.P. SCHOOL, VARINJAM, EDANADU P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691579 (RESIDING AT DARUL HUDA, PERUPURAM, KARINGANNOOR PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691516). (M.7025906973) BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR ## **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-695 014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM @ THEVALLY-691 009. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013. **WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **2** 5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572. 6 THE MANAGER, KUNHI KRISHNA PILLAI MEMORIAL U.P. SCHOOL, VARINJAM, EDANADU P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691579 . SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he was appointed as regular Part Time Lower Grade Arabic Teacher at Kunhi Krishna Pillai Memorial UP School, Varinjam, an aided school under the management of the 6th respondent, with effect from 01.06.2009 against an additional anticipated post sanctioned during 20092010 in the school. However, his appointment was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P7 revision petition seeking issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider and grant approval for the period from 1.6.2009 to 31.5.2011. 2. Sri. Rajasekharan Nair, 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 **WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **4** that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 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 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 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 his initial appointment and **WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **5** 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. 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 Exhibit P7 revision petition filed by the **WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **6** petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Exhibits P4 and P5 judgments. 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 revision petition, 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 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 petitioner to produce a copy of **WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **7** 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** NS **WP(C) NO. 33432 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33432/2022** PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2009 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2009 AND THE APPROVAL RECORDED THEREON. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/2290/2016 DATED 15.11.2016 OF THE AEO, CHATHANOOR . Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017 . Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT . Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 30.09.2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO.4/2021/G.EDN. DATED 06.02.2021 OF THE GOVT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2009-2010 DATED 25.02.2011 . Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2010-2011 DATED 25.02.2011 RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL