High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of.
Emy C Paul and others v. The State of Kerala and others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.13493 of 2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V
- Judgment Date
- 2022-08-30
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of. The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P19 to P26 revision petitions with notice to petitioners and respondents 7 to 11, and decide expeditiously, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering these revision petitions, the Government shall reckon that the manager is deemed to have executed the bond and that appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period must be made. The orders passed shall be subject to the final orders of the Apex Court in the pending petitions. It would be open for the petitioners to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- EMY C PAUL
- LIGI ALIAS
- JOHN K JACOB
- JINU ALIAS
- ANUPA IGNATIOUS E
- JULISE RAJU
- ELDO JOHN
- SAJI TV
Respondents
- THE STATE OF KERALA represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 0011
- THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014
- THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA SATHRAKUNNU, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 673
- THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY PALISSERY, THALASSERY - 670104
- THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM 686001
- THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRITTY IRITTY P.O, KANNUR DIST 670 703 .
- THE CORPORATE MANAGER, SCHOOLS OF THE EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION OF THE EAST, IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST - 683 548.
- THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF THALASSERY, PALISSERY, THALASSERY - 670104 .
- THE HEADMASTER M.S.V. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALAKOM, MUVATTUPUZHA - 682316.
- THE HEADMASTER ST. MARY'S U.P SCHOOL, PERUMPUNNA, THALASSERY, KANNUR DIST - 670 673.
- THE HEADMASTER P.E.M HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST-686 019.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • John T. Paul
Counsels for Respondents
- • SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
Eight petitioners, appointed to teaching/Full-Time Menial posts under Corporate Educational Agencies, challenge the non‑approval of their initial appointments during a period of economic ban. Their appointments were eventually regularised with effect from 01.06.2011 after a ban on appointments in additional division vacancies; they seek a direction to approve their appointments from the date of initial appointment and to decide their revision petitions (P19–P26). The petitioners rely on Government Orders: GO(P)317/2005/G.Edn (2005) banning such appointments; GO(P)10/10/G.Edn (2010) lifting the ban subject to conditions; and GO(P)199/2011/G.Edn (2011) which implemented a comprehensive teacher package for deployed/protected teachers. They contend that in similar cases this Court has held bonds need not be executed by managers; bonds may be deemed executed and protected teachers should be appointed in proportion to the number of appointments approved during the ban. The Government Pleader argues for a strict 1:1 apportionment and insists on bonds where the ban was not complied with, noting pending apex court matters. The Court, after considering arguments, disposes of the petition by directing the 1st respondent to decide P19–P26 within four months, treating bonds as deemed executed and keeping orders subject to final apex court orders, with liberty to the petitioners to furnish documents for further action.
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 01.06.2011
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Bonds deemed to have been executed by managers in cases where managers did not execute bonds (Suma Devi doctrine)
- Equal number of appointments from the protected list corresponding to appointments approved during the ban (1:1 ratio)
- Suma Devi (State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors., W.A.No.2111/2015)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that their appointments were made during the ban period and were only later approved from 01.06.2011; they rely on GO(P)10/10/2010 lifting the ban with conditions and on the 2011 teacher package; even in cases where managers did not execute bonds, bonds should be deemed executed and protected teachers appointed proportionately to the number of appointments approved during the ban; they urge the 1st respondent to decide their revision petitions (P19–P26) expeditiously, and to reckon the bond as executed, with appointments from the protected list per the ban period; orders should be finalised without prejudice to the Apex Court’s pending decisions; they request that the judgment and copy of the order be produced before the appropriate authorities for action.
Contentions of Respondents
The Government Pleader contends that appointments in additional division vacancies must follow a 1:1 apportionment with the protected teachers, and that any deviation requires managers to have executed bonds; some managers have challenged GO 10/10/2010, and those matters are pending before the Apex Court; hence, the implementation must await final Apex Court orders. The respondents urge adherence to existing orders and caution that the revision petitions should be resolved in line with the ratio and bonds, ensuring no violation of the statutory framework; they emphasize that final disposal should respect Apex Court proceedings.
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 | Division Bench held that where the bond is not executed by managers, it should be deemed executed and protected teachers must be appointed in the same number as the appointments approved during the ban. |
| Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Appeal No. 2290 of 2015 | W.A. No. 2290 of 2015 | Positive | Cited as supportive authority for the principle of deeming bonds and directing proportional appointments; adopted by the court in the present case. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Emy C Paul and others v. The 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.
```
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
```
```
PRESENT
```
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 30[TH]DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 8TH BHADRA,1944
```
```
WP(C) NO. 13493 OF 2022
```
## `PETITIONER/S:`
```
1EMY C PAUL.,
HSA (MAL)
M.S.V.H.S.S, VALAKOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST, RESIDING AT
KOLLAMPADICKAL HOUSE, EZHUPRAM, KADAYIRIPPU P.O,
KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DIST- PIN-682311.
2LIGI ALIAS, HSA (S.S),
M.S.V.H.S.S, VALAKOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST, RESIDING AT
VATTAPPILLIYIL HOUSE, KARUKADAM P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DIST- PIN-686691.
3JOHN K JACOB, HSA (HINDI),
BRC KOOVAPPADY, G.V.H.S.S ODAKKALI CAMPUS,
ERNAKULAM DIST, RESIDING AT KOCHUKUDI HOUSE, PANAMKUZHY,
KOMBANAD P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST- PIN-683546.
4JINU ALIAS, HSA (S.S),
M.S.V.H.S.S, VALAKOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST,
RESIDING AT VATTAPPILLIYIL HOUSE, KARUKADAM P.O,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST- PIN-686691.
5ANUPA IGNATIOUS E, HSA (MAL),
E.M.H.S, THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST, RESIDING AT
EDATHANIKKATTU HOUSE, PUTHUPPADI P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DIST-686673.
6JULISE RAJU,
FULL TIME MENIAL
P.E.M.H.S., THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST, RESIDING AT
MATHUKKALAYIL HOUSE, EZHUPRAM, KARIKKODE P.O, PERUVA,
KOTTAYAM DIST - 686610.
7ELDO JOHN, HSA (S.S),
ST. THOMAS H.S, KELAKOM P.O, KANNUR DIST,
```
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
2
```
RESIDING AT MOLAYIL HOUSE, AYROORPADAM P.O
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST-686692.
```
```
8SAJI TV, HSA (S.S),
ST. MARY'S H.S.S, EDOOR, PAYAM P.O, IRITTY, KANNUR DIST,
RESIDING AT THENGUMPALLIL HOUSE, KAKKAYANGAD P.O,
PALAPPUZHA, KANNUR DIST. PIN- 670673.
BY ADV JOHN T.PAUL
```
## `RESPONDENT/S:`
|`1`|`THE STATE OF KERALA`|
|---|---|
||`REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT`|
||`GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,`|
||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 0011.`|
|`2`|`THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,`|
||`JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.`|
|`3`|`THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,`|
||`MUVATTUPUZHA SATHRAKUNNU, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 673.`|
|`4`|`THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,`|
||`THALASSERY PALISSERY, THALASSERY - 670104.`|
|`5`|`THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,`|
||`KOTTAYAM THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM 686001.`|
|`6`|`THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,`|
||`IRITTY IRITTY P.O, KANNUR DIST 670 703 .`|
|`7`|`THE CORPORATE MANAGER,`|
||`SCHOOLS OF THE EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION OF THE EAST,`|
||`IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST - 683 548.`|
|`8`|`THE CORPORATE MANAGER,`|
||`CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF THALASSERY,`|
||`PALISSERY, THALASSERY - 670104 .`|
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
3
```
9THE HEADMASTER
M.S.V. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALAKOM,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 682316.
10THE HEADMASTER,
ST. MARY'S U.P SCHOOL, PERUMPUNNA, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DIST - 670 673.
11THE HEADMASTER,
P.E.M HIGH SCHOOL,
THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST-686 019.
```
```
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP
```
`THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:` **`**
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
4
## **J U D G M E N T**
The petitioners state that they have been appointed against admissible teaching/Full-Time Menial posts in various schools under the Management of Corporate Educational Agency while the economic ban was in force. Approval of their appointment was finally granted only with effect from 1.6.2011. The grievance of the petitioners concerns the non-approval of their appointment from the initial date.
2. It is contended by the petitioners 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 Exhibit P5 order vide No G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, the ban on appointments was lifted subject to certain conditions. One of 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. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.06.2011 approving the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher’s package
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
5
for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioners were also included in the package, and their appointments were regularised with effect from 01.06.2011. According to the petitioners, similarly placed teachers 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 had executed the bond. The petitioners contend that they have preferred Exts. P19 to P26 revision petitions before the 1st respondent seeking approval, and the same is pending. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision petitions.
3. Sri. John T. Paul, 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, they 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 appointments in additional division vacancies are liable to be apportioned in the ratio of 1:1
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
6
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.
5. 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 was 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
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
7
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.
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:
a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P19 to P26 revision petitions filed by the petitioners respectively with notice to the petitioners as well as respondents 7 to 11 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 four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
b) While considering the revision petitions, the Secretary
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
8
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 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**
sru
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
9
## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13493/2022`
```
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
```
|`Exhibit P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST`|
|---|---|
||`PETITIONER DATED 21.6.2006.`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY THE 2ND`|
||`RESPONDENT ORDER NO. ET(4)23123/08/DPI/KDIS`|
||`DATED 15.7.2008.`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND`|
||`PETITIONER NO.17/2007-08 DATED 31.5.2007.`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY THE DEO,`|
||`MUVATTUPUZHA NO. B2/3806/2007/K.DIS. DATED`|
||`24.3.2008.`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 01.6.2007.`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE DEO,`|
||`MUVATTUPUZHA NO. B2/3563/2007/K.DIS. DATED`|
||`28.11.2007.`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 10.6.2008.`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY THE DEO,`|
||`MUVATTUPUZHA NO. B2/3826/08/K.DIS. DATED`|
||`02.3.2009.`|
|`Exhibit P9`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 01.7.2008.`|
|`Exhibit P10`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 6TH`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2010.`|
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
10
|`Exhibit P11`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY THE DEO,`|
|---|---|
||`MUVATTUPUZHA NO. B2/2746/10/K.DIS DATED`|
||`25.3.2011.`|
|`Exhibit P12`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 7TH`|
||`PETITIONER NO.9/2010-11 DATED 31.5.2010.`|
|`Exhibit P13`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 8TH`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 23.6.2008.`|
|`Exhibit P14`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY THE AEO,`|
||`IRITTY NO. K.DIS/B/5116/08 DATED 10.12.2008.`|
|`Exhibit P15`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE`|
||`COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2015 DATED`|
||`25-7-2017.`|
|`Exhibit P16`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.100/12/2017/G`|
||`EDN DATED 11.9.2018.`|
|`Exhibit P17`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE`|
||`COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 23304 OF 2019 DATED`|
||`04-9-2019.`|
|`Exhibit P18`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT ORDER G.O(RT)/NO.`|
||`672/2020/G.E.D. DATED 07.2.2020.`|
|`Exhibit P19`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 1ST`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.`|
|`Exhibit P20`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 2ND`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.`|
|`Exhibit P21`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 3RD`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.`|
|`Exhibit P22`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 4TH`|
||`PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.`|
|`Exhibit P23`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 5TH`|
W.P. (C) No.13493 of 2022
11
```
PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.
```
```
Exhibit P24A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 6TH
PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.
```
```
Exhibit P25A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 7TH
PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.
```
```
Exhibit P26A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BY THE 8TH
PETITIONER DATED 18.3.2022.
```
```
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
```