Manju Jose and Others v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V
- Judgment Date
- 2022-08-25
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of. The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P6 to P9 revision petitions with notice to the petitioners and the 5th respondent, and to decide expeditiously within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, bearing in mind the law laid down in Suma Devi (supra). While considering the revisions, the Government shall reckon that the manager is deemed to have executed the bond and that they would be obliged to appoint from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The orders passed shall be subject to the final orders in the pending Apex Court matters. The petitioners may produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions as above.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Manju Jose
- Daya John
- Sinimole T.J.
- Maimoonath K.A.
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Director of General Education, General Education Department, Government of Kerala
- Assistant Educational Officer, Office of the AEO, Thodupuzha
- Assistant Educational Officer, Office of the AEO, Kothamangalam
- Corporate Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Kothamangalam
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. Paulson Thomas
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Nisha Bose, Sr GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a writ petition (WP(C)) filed by four aided school teachers working in schools under the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Kothamangalam, challenging the non-approval of their appointments made against additional division vacancies from 1 June 2010. The petitioners seek a declaration that their appointments be deemed approved from the date of appointment, treating that the manager had executed a bond as per Government Order G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. The background includes a ban on appointments in such vacancies under G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. (2005) and its lifting with conditions by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. (2010), which required managers to execute a consent/undertaking that vacancies would be filled from protected teachers in proportion to appointments made during 2006-07 to 2009-10. The Government later included petitioners in the comprehensive teacher’s package via G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn (2011), with regularisation from 01.06.2011. The petitioners rely on precedents, including a Division Bench decision in Suma Devi (supra) that non‑execution of bond should be deemed executed, obliging equal appointments from protected teachers. The respondents contend 1:1 apportionment and that bonds must be executed; some matters are before the Supreme Court. The court disposes of the petition by directing reconsideration of revision petitions (Exhs P6-P9) within four months, allowing deeming of bonds, and noting orders remain subject to final Apex Court orders.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Deemed execution of bond by manager in absence of actual bond
- Equality of appointments from protected teachers equal to the number approved during the ban period (1:1 ratio)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that their appointments to additional division vacancies during 2010-2011 were made under a ban and remained unapproved. They submit that, following the law in similar cases, managers are to be deemed to have executed the bond and must make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period; judgments directing approval from the date of appointment should be followed. They rely on the Suma Devi decision and on the subsequent Government orders that allowed lifting the ban with conditions, arguing for immediate approval from the date of appointment while the revision petitions (Exhs P6-P9) are decided. They pray that the 1st respondent be directed to decide the revisions expeditiously, treating bonds as deemed executed and applying the protected-teacher list, subject to any final Apex Court orders.
Contentions of Respondents
The Government Pleader contends that all appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that if a bond was not executed, the manager should have done so under G.O.(P) No.10/10. He notes that some matters are pending before the Supreme Court. He urges that orders on Exts P6-P9 be issued only in conformity with those decisions and subject to final Apex Court orders, and that the ban regime continues to govern the appointments until final adjudication.
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 | The Division Bench held that non-execution of the bond should be deemed to have been executed and managers must appoint from the protected list to the extent of appointments approved during the ban, guiding the present court's directions. |
| W.P.(C) NO. 5192/2018 | W.P.(C) NO. 5192/2018 | Mentioned Only | Judgment referenced as Exhibit P10; the document does not discuss its holdings. |
| W.P.(C) NO. 22134/2022 | W.P.(C) NO. 22134/2022 | Mentioned Only | Judgment referenced as Exhibit P11; not explored in the judgment text. |
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 Manju Jose and Others 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.