High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-07Disposed of

null

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 22134 of 2022

Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-07
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P16 to P29 revision petitions with notice, taking note of the law in Suma Devi; 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 should be made. Orders to be issued within three months from the judgment receipt, subject to any final orders by the Apex Court. Petitioners may produce the writ petition copy along with the judgment for further action.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Varghese Antony
Jaimon Jacob
Jobin K. Kalathikattil
Sindhu Pappachan
Jishmon John
Binu Joseph
Bino Philip
Nicy Joseph
Manoj George
Joel Jose
Shibu Jose
Princy Mathew
Jasmine John
Jose K. Sebastian

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of General Education, Government of Kerala
District Educational Officer, Thodupuzha, Idukki District
District Educational Officer, Kattappana
Corporate Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Idduki

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Paulson Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Nisha Bose

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners—fourteen aided school teachers employed under the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Idukki—seek directions for early approval of their appointments, made during a period when the government ban on appointments to additional division vacancies was in force. They argue that subsequent GO orders progressively lifted the ban with conditions, including a requirement that managers execute consent or bonds and that many teachers were regularized under the comprehensive teacher’s package of 2011. The petitioners rely on jurisprudence applying the bond-deemed-executed doctrine, contending that managers who did not execute bonds should be treated as having done so, obliging appointments to be made from the protected list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The respondents argue that appointments in such vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and only if bonds are executed, with some managers challenging GO 10/10/2010 before the apex court. After examining the submissions and the chain of precedents, the judge cites a Division Bench decision in Suma Devi (State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors) holding the bond-deemed-executed principle, and disposes of the petition with directions. The court directs the government to decide revision petitions P16–P29 promptly, recognizing the deemed bond and ensuring equal appointments from the protected list, subject to any final apex court orders, and permits production of the judgment copy in further action. The petition is thus disposed of.

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 01.06.2011G.O.(P) NO. 10/2010/G.EDN dated 12-01-2010

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bond deemed to have been executed (doctrine)
Equality of appointments from protected list equal to number of appointments approved during the ban period
1:1 apportionment of appointments in additional division vacancies
Suma Devi (supra) – State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors (Division Bench)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submits that the managers’ failure to execute bonds should be treated as if bonds were executed, obliging appointment from the protected list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period, thereby ensuring justice to those already deployed under the package and regularized. They rely on the doctrine articulated in Suma Devi and similar judgments that bond-nonexecution should not defeat the rights of protected teachers and seek a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts. P16–P29 revision petitions with notice to all parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel contends that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that managers who failed to execute bonds must have done so; many challenges to GO 10/10/2010 are pending before the Apex Court, so the petitions cannot be granted unconditionally. They urge careful adherence to the governing GO framework and the final adjudication by the apex court.

Cited Precedents (4)

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 non-execution of bonds by managers should be deemed as though bonds were executed, obliging equal number of appointments from protected list.
Suma Devi (supra)	W.A.No.2111/2015	Positive	Cited to support the bond-deemed-executed doctrine applied by the Court.
Judgment in W.P.(C) No. 5192/2018	WP(C) No. 5192/2018	Mentioned Only	Exhibited as part of the Appendix; referenced but not relied upon for the decision.
Judgment in W.P.(C) No. 30407/2021	WP(C) No. 30407/2021	Mentioned Only	Exhibited in the Appendix; cited without analysis in the judgment.

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 null 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. 22134 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **PETITIONERS:** 1 VARGHESE ANTONY, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, L.G. HINDI (F.T.), ST. GEORGE'S H.S.S.,PARATHODE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 571. 2 JAIMON JACOB, AGED 40 YRS., S/O. CHACKO T.M., HST (MATHS), ST. MARY'S HSS, MARIYAPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 602. 3 JOBIN K. KALATHIKATTIL, AGED 45 YRS., S/O. K.C. KURUVILA, HST (MALAYALAM), ST. THOMAS HSS, THANKAMANY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 609. 4 SINDHU PAPPACHAN, AGED 41 YRS., W/O. SHELGY, LPST, ST. XAVIERS HSS, CHEMMANNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 554. 5 JISHMON JOHN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. JOHN THOMAS, HST (MATHS), ST. THOMAS HSS, THANKAMANY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 609 6 BINU JOSEPH, AGED 43 YRS., S/O. THOMAS JOSEPH, HST (ENGLISH), ST. GEORGE'S HSS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 571 7 BINO PHILIP, AGED 45 YRS., S/O. PHILIP THOMAS, HST (MALAYALAM), ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, PONMUDI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **2** PIN - 685 563. 8 NICY JOSEPH, AGED 39 YRS., W/O. JIS K. GEORGE, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, PUNNAYAR, KANJIKUZHY P.C., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 606. 9 MANOJ GEORGE, AGED 47 YRS., S/O. GEORGE, MUSIC TEACHER, ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, PUNNAYAR, KANJIKUZHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 606. 10 JOEL JOSE, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. JOSE P.T., HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (NS), ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, PUNNAYAR, KANJIKUZHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 606. 11 SHIBU JOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. JOSE, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIAL SCIENCE), ST. MARY'S HSS, MURICKASSERY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 604. 12 PRINCY MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. K.J. MANI, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (ENGLISH), S.G.H.S.S., VAZHATHOPE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 602. 13 JASMINE JOHN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. AMBROSE K.V., HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (MALAYALAM), S.G.H.S.S., VAZHATHOPE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 602 14 JOSE K. SEBASTIAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. DEVASIA, LG HP (FT), ST. MARY'S H.S., VAZHAVARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 515. BY ADV PAULSON THOMAS ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **3** 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 005. 3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEO AT THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 584. 4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAPPANA, OFFICE OF THE DDE AT KATTAPPANA, PIN - 685 508. 5 CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF IDUKKI, MANIPPARA P.O., KARIMPAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 602. SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **4** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they are aided school teachers working in various schools coming under the management of the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Idukki. The grievance of the petitioners concerns the non-approval of the appointment of the petitioners from the date of 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 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. 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. The petitioners **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **5** were also included in the package and their appointments were regularised with effect from 1.6.2011. 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 relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P16 to P29 revision petitions respectively before the 1st respondent. 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.Paulson Thomas, 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, 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **6** 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **7** 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 P16 to P29 revision petitions filed by the petitioners respectively with notice to the petitioners as well as the 5th 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 representation, 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. 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. 22134 OF 2022** **8** 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** IAP **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22134/2022** ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 1.6.2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 4.6.2008 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 20-06-2007. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 04-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 06-06-2007. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 03-06-2008. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 04-06-2008. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009. **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **10** Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2010. - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 10TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 02-06-2008. - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 11TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 12-07-2010. - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 12TH PETITIONER DATED 17.12.2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 13TH PETITIONER DATED 17-12-2011 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01-06-2009. - Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 14TH PETITIONER DATED 05-01-2012 GRANTING APPROVAL W.E.F. 01-06-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT DATED 06-06-2008. - Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 10/2010/G.EDN. DATED 12-01-2010. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. **WP(C) NO. 22134 OF 2022** **11** Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 12TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 13TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 14TH PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2022. Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 5192/2018 DATED 08-03-2018. Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 30407/2021 DATED 14-03-2022. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL