High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-23Writ petition disposed of

Joby Thomas v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2021-11-23
Court Decision / Holding: 1st respondent is to consider Exhibit P11 with notice to the petitioner and 8th respondent, and decide expeditiously within three months. While considering the petition, the Secretary to Government shall determine whether GO 10/10/G.Edn. applies and, if so, deem that managers have executed bonds and are obliged to appoint from the protected list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban. The orders shall be subject to the Supreme Court’s pending decision. The petitioner may produce a copy of the writ petition and judgment for further action. The writ petition is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joby Thomas

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Director of General Education, Government of Kerala, Jagathy P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695014
The Deputy Director of Education, Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Palace Road, Kottayam-686001
The District Educational Officer, Pala P.O., Kottayam-686575
The District Educational Officer, Kaduthuruthy P.O., Kottayam-686604
The District Educational Officer, Kanjirappally P.O., Kottayam-686507
The Assistant Educational Officer, Ramapuram P.O., Kottayam-686576
The Corporate Manager, The Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Pala, Pala P.O., Kottayam-686575

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B. Mohan Lal

Counsels for Respondents

• Nisha Bose, Sr Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Joby Thomas, the petitioner, challenges the State authorities’ refusal to approve his appointment as UPSA at St. Thomas HSS Pala, an aided school under the management of the Diocese of Pala. The writ petition contends that the ban on appointments in additional division vacancies, imposed by GO (P) 317/2005/G.Edn., was later lifted by GO (P) 10/10/G.Edn., on 12 January 2010, subject to conditions including a manager’s bond guaranteeing future appointments from the pool of protected teachers. The 8th respondent allegedly failed to execute the required bond. Subsequently, GO (P) No.199/2011/G.Edn approved a comprehensive package for deployed/protected teachers. The petitioner relies on earlier judgments of this Court directing that, even where bonds were not executed, managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and would be obliged to appoint from the protected list equal in number to appointments approved during the ban. The respondents contend that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1, and that pending Supreme Court petitions on GO 10/10 cannot be used to deny relief if the petitioner is found eligible. The court directs the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 with notice, decide within three months, and to evaluate the applicability of GO 10/10; while the decision proceeds, the orders shall be subject to the Supreme Court’s final ruling. The petition is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn.G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn.G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the ban on appointments in additional division vacancies, as per G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn., was lifted by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. on 12.01.2010 subject to a bond by the manager, and that the 8th respondent failed to execute this bond. He relies on prior judgments of this Court directing that, when bonds are not executed, managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and would have to make appointments from the protected list in the same number as those approved during the ban period. The petitioner seeks direction to consider Ext.P11 in light of Ext.P10 judgment and asserts that pending Supreme Court petitions on GO 10/10 should notbar relief. He seeks a favorable decision from the 1st respondent, with the consideration of GO 10/10’s applicability and recognition of bonds deemed executed, and for action to be taken expeditiously under Exhibit P11.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that if a protected teacher’s appointment is not done under GO 10/10, the manager should have executed a bond. It is noted that some managers challenge GO 10/10 before the Supreme Court, and matters are pending. It is for the 1st respondent to determine if the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of GO 10/10, and the pendency of Supreme Court petitions should not deny relief if applicable.

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	The Division Bench relied on this decision to hold that non-execution of bonds by managers should be deemed as executed and require proportional appointments from the protected list.
WA No. 300/2019 and connected cases	WA No. 300/2019	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P10 contains this judgment; it is referenced but not treated as controlling in the present order.

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 Joby Thomas 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. 26332 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** JOBY THOMAS, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. N.O. THOMAS, HST (MATHEMATICS), ST. THOMAS H.S., MARANGATTUPILLY P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM-686635, RESIDING AT NIRAPPIL, KURAVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM686633. BY ADV B.MOHANLAL ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA,| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO| ||GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,| ||SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.| |2|THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,| ||GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY P.O,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.| |3|THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,| ||OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALACE| ||ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.| |4|THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,| ||PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686575.| |5|THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,| ||KADUTHURUTY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686604.| |6|THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,| ||KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686507.| |7|THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,| ||RAMAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686576.| |8|THE CORPORATE MANAGER,| ||THE CORPORATE EDUATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF PALA,| **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** **2** PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686575. SMT NISHA BOSE SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents in approving the appointment of the petitioner to the post of UPSA in the St.Thomas HSS Pala, an aided school under the management of the 8th respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 representation before the 1st respondent. 2. Sri.B. Mohan Lal, 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 12.1.2010, 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 8th 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 01.06.2011 approving the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher’s package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. According to the petitioner, teachers similarly placed as the petitioner had approached this Court and by various judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** **4** approve the appointment from the date of appointment by deeming that the manager has executed the bond. The learned counsel contends 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. It is submitted that though various other reliefs are claimed, the petitioner would be satisfied if necessary directions are issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation in the light of Ext.P10 judgment. 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 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. It is further submitted that it is for the 1st respondent to consider whether the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioner claims that he was appointed during the period when the ban was in force. **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** **5** The question as to whether the above Government Order would apply to the petitioner herein has to be ascertained by the 1st respondent while considering the revision petition. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, 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 Exhibit P11 representation submitted by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 8th respondent and take a decision, as per procedure and in accordance with the law. Appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** **6** receipt of a copy of this judgment. b) While considering the petition, the Secretary to Government shall consider whether G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 would apply and if it applies, the 1st respondent shall be free to reckon 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 petitioner. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending petitions. - c) It would be open to the petitioner 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** IAP **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26332/2021** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 02/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B23726/2008/K.DIS DATED 17/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3/193/09/K.DIS DATED 17/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B22934/09/K.DIS DATED 06/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B314296/09/K.DIS DATED 21/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN APPEAL. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO. C/2277/11/K.DIS DATED 13/03/2012 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 04/06/2012 ISSUED BY 8TH RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO. C-1850/12/K.DIS DATED 20/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 03/06/2013 AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO. B47747/2015/K.DIS DATED 27/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. **WP(C) NO. 26332 OF 2021** **8** Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/08/2019 IN WA NO. 300/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/10/2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL