Jincy Kurian and others v. State of Kerala and Ors.

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH]DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA,1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2022 ``` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` 1JINCY KURIAN AGED 45 YEARS W/O. BINOY JOSEPH, NOW WORKING AS HSA (PS), ST. THOMAS HSS, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 514. 2JINCE JOSE, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. JOSE, UPST, SS UPS, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 553. 3DAISAMMA JACOB, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. MATHEW JOSEPH, UPST, SS UPS, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 553. 4SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH ANTONY, UPST, SM UPS MANKULAM, MANKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 561. 5TONY TOM, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, UPST, ST, THOMAS HSS, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 514. BY ADV PAULSON THOMAS ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 005. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 20222 ``` ``` 3DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAPPANA, OFFICE OF THE DEO AT KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 508. 4ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAPPANA, OFFICE OF THE AEO AT KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 508. 5ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM, OFFICE OF THE AEO AT NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 553. 6CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF IDUKKI, MANIPPARA P.O., KARIMPAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 602. SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they are presently working as teachers in the schools coming under the management of Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Idukki. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was appointed as UPST on 1.6.2009, the 2nd petitioner as UPSA on 2.6.2008, the 3rd petitioner as HST on 2.6.2008 till 31.5.2010, the 4th petitioner as UPST on 1.6.2010 and the 5th petitioner as UPST on 2.6.2008. However, their appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are stated to have preferred Exts.P7 to P11 revision petitions before the Government. The prayer in this writ petition is for expeditious consideration of Exts.P7 to P11. 2. Sri.Paulson Thomas, the learned counsel, submitted 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 12.01.2010, 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. 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 learned counsel submits that teachers similarly placed as the petitioners have been granted orders in the nature of Ext.P13 by deeming that the Manager has 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 teacher is not done as provided in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, 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. It is submitted that if the limited request is only to ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## consider the revision petition, there cannot be any impediment. 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 12.01.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioners was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 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 01.08.2017 in W.A.No.2111/2015], has held that in the case of non-execution of 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## by issuing the following directions: - a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P7 to P11 revision petitions filed by the petitioners with notice to the petitioners as well as the 6th 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 be free to reckon, if all conditions are satisfied, 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. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 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** sru ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24251/2022` ``` PETITIONERS EXHIBITS ``` |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST`| |---|---| ||`PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2009.`| |`Exhibit P1 A`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF`| ||`THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2011.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF`| ||`THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 02-06-2008.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 02-06-2008.`| |`Exhibit P 3A`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF`| ||`THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2010.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 31-05-2010.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 02-06-2008.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 10/2010/ G.EDN. DATED`| ||`12-01-2010.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE`| ||`1ST PETITIONER DATED 02-07-2022.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE`| ||`2ND PETITIONER DATED 02-07-2022.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE`| ||`3RD PETITIONER DATED 02-07-2022.`| |`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE`| ||`4TH PETITIONER DATED 02-07-2022.`| |`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE`| ||`5TH PETITIONER DATED 02-07-2022.`| ``` WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 5192/2018 DATED 08-03-2018. Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 22134/2022 DATED 07.07.2022. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ```