Lijo K John and Kavitha P.C. v. State of Kerala and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 17 [ TH ] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1 LIJO K JOHN AGED 39 YEARS UPSA, ST. JOHN'S JACOBITE SYRIAN, H.S, KANNIATTUNIRAPPU, KUZHIYARA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682312. 2 KAVITHA P.C, UPSA, ST. JOHN'S JACOBITE SYRIAN H.S, KANNIATTUNIRAPPU, KUZHIYARA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682312. BY ADVS. SHERRY J. THOMAS JOEMON ANTONY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001 2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695014. 3 ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, GROUND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION RD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, KERALA 683101 4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, ANNEXE, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, KERALA 683101. 5 MANAGER, ST. JOHN'S JACOBITE SYRIAN, H.S, KANNIATTUNIRAPPU, KUZHIYARA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682312. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 6 HEAD MASTER, ST. JOHN'S JACOBITE SYRIAN, H.S, KANNIATTUNIRAPPU, KUZHIYARA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682312. ``` ``` SMT MARY BEENA JOSEPH SR GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they are appointed as UPSAs at St. John’s Jacobite Syrian H.S., Kanniattunirappu, on 02.06.2008 and 01.06.2009 respectively, in additional anticipated vacancies of UPSA by the 5th respondent. The grievance of the petitioners concerns the non-approval of the appointment of the petitioners from the initial date of appointment. They have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P4 to the extent of denial of approval of appointment from the date of their initial appointment. 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 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. It is further submitted that narrating their grievances, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P6 and P7 representations before the Government and pray that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same untrammeled by the view taken in the earlier order. 3. Sri. Joemon Antony, 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. 4. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` concerned, the orders passed shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Apex Court in the pending litigation. Resultantly, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The following directions are issued - a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts. P6 and P7 representations and pass orders 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 with due notice to the petitioners, respondents - 5 and 6 and affected parties, if any. - 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. - c) 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. ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` d) 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** ``` avs ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30756/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - `Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02-06-2008.` - `Exhibit P1 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2009.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 12-03-2009.` - `Exhibit P2 A THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE MANAGER (5TH RESPONDENT) TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, DATED 21-05-2009.` - `Exhibit P2 B THE TRUE OF THE ORDER DATED 25-07-2009 BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF REJECTION LETTER DATED 03-06-2008 IN CONNECTION WITH STAFF FIXATION OF ST. JOHN'S JACOBITE SYRIAN, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. DATED 2.06-2008` - `Exhibit P4 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. -DATED 1-6 -2009.` - `Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.10/2010/GEN.EDN. DATED 12.01.2010.` ``` Exhibit P6 THE TRUE-COPY OF LETTER DATED 01-06-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 6.6.2022. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 30756 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` Exhibit P7 THE TRUE OF LETTER DATED 01-06-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 6.6.2022. Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 26449/2018 DATED 23-11-2018. Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 12602/2021 DATED 9.7.2021. Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF COMPLIANCE DATED 17.4.2022. ```