High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-07Writ petition disposed of with directions to re...

P. V. Anil v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
Judgment Date: 2022-10-07
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. Ext. P11 to the extent it concerns the petitioner is quashed. The court directs the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext. P9 (revision) and Ext. P15 (representation), taking into account the law laid down in Suma Devi, and to pass expeditious orders within three months, recognizing the Manager as deemed to have executed the bond and that appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of approvals during the ban period should be made, subject to final orders by the Supreme Court. The petitioner may furnish a copy of the judgment along with the writ petition copy to the respondents for further action.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to reconsider and apply deemed bond principle and 1:1 appointment mechanism, subject to Apex Court final orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Anil

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of General Education
Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram
District Educational Officer, Malappuram
Manager, Tharakan High School, Angadipuram
Headmaster, Tharakan High School, Angadipuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Legith T. Kotakkal
• P.R. Banerji

Counsels for Respondents

• Nisha Bose, Sr. Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. Anil, was appointed as a High School Assistant (English) at Tharakan High School, Angadipuram on 18-08-2008 in an additional anticipated vacancy created during the ban period. He challenges Ext. P11, the order denying approval from the initial appointment date, seeking to quash denial and obtain approval from the date of original appointment. He contends that he had previously approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30441 of 2012, which, by judgment dated 19-12-2012, directed the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition and decide. The resultant Ext. P11 denial was based on the manager not executing a bond as required by G.O.(P) No. 10/10/G.Edn. The petitioner argues that the government’s sequence of orders from 2005 to 2011—bans on additional vacancies, their subsequent lifting, and the “comprehensive teacher’s package” for deployed/protected teachers—ultimately regularised appointments from 01.06.2011; similarly placed teachers obtained court directions to approve appointments from their dates of appointment, deeming bonds to have been executed. The petitioner asserts non-execution of bonds should be deemed executed, entitling him to equal appointments to those approved during the ban period. Respondents contend that all such appointments require a bonded undertaking and that certain matters are pending before the Supreme Court. The Court, relying on State of Kerala v. Suma Devi (Suma Devi) and related jurisprudence, holds that the impugned Ext. P11 cannot sustain the petitioner’s position and directs reconsideration of Ext. P9 and Ext. P15, with the bond deemed to have been executed and a 1:1 apportionment from the protected-bonned pool, subject to final Supreme Court orders. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. (dated 17-08-2005)G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. (dated 12-01-2010)G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn. (dated 01-06-2011)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bond deemed to have been executed in the absence of express execution by the manager (as laid down in Suma Devi)
1:1 ratio in appointment of protected teachers during the ban period (as per GO 10/10/2010)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner submits that denial of approval from the initial appointment date is unsustainable in view of prior approvals and judicial directions in similar cases where bonds were deemed executed and protected-teacher appointments were to be counted against the post-ban period. He relies on the 2010–2011 GO framework and subsequent judgments directing formation of a cadre for protected teachers, contends that the manager’s failure to execute a bond should not defeat the petitioner’s entitlement; seeks quashing Ext. P11 and reconsideration of Ext. P9/Ext. P15.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that appointments in additional division vacancies require a formal bond and adherence to GO provisions; the lifting of the ban was subject to conditions and that several related matters are pending before the Supreme Court; Ext. P11 was issued correctly insofar as it reflected the bond requirement and the status of approvals during the ban period.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V. Suma Devi and Ors	WA 2111/2015	Positive	Division Bench held that in cases of non-execution of bonds by Managers, bonds should be deemed executed and managers obliged to make equal numbers of appointments when the ban-period appointments are approved, guiding reconsideration in this case.
WA 2290/2015	WA 2290/2015	Mentioned Only	Cited in appendix (Exhibit P12) but not explicitly discussed in the judgment’s reasoning; referenced as related authority.

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 P. V. Anil 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. 29972 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** P.V.ANIL, AGED 41 YEARS S/O K.V ACHUNNI VARIER, RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, THACHINGANADAM P.O, 676521, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, AND WORKING AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH) THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL ANAGADIPURAM, MALAPURAM-679321. BY ADVS. LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL P.R.BANERJI ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAPPADY DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, B2 BLOCK CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505. **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** **2** 5 THE MANAGER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321. 6 THE HEADMASTER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321. SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he was appointed as HSA (English) at Tharakan High School, Angadipuram on 18.08.2008 in an additional anticipated vacancy of HSA (English) by the 5th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the non-approval of the appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of the appointment. He has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P11 to the extent of denial of approval from the date of initial appointment. 2. The petitioner contends that he had approached this Court earlier and had filed W.P.(C) No.30441 of 2012 and by judgment dated 19.12.2012, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition and to take a decision. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the revision petition was heard and Ext.P11 order has been passed wherein the request for approval from the initial date of appointment was rejected on the ground that the manager has not executed any bond. 3. It is contended by the petitioner 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 **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** **4** 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 teacher’s package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioner was also included in the package, and his appointment was regularised with effect from 01.06.2011. According to the petitioner, 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. According to the learned counsel, in that view of the matter, there was no justification in dismissing the revision petition on the ground that the manager has not executed any bond. It is further submitted that narrating his grievances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P15 representation before the Government and prays that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same untrammeled by the view taken in the earlier order. **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** **5** 4. Sri.Legith T.Kottakkal, 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. 5. 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 12.01.2010, and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioner was 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 petitioner was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 on the ground that there was a ban on appointments at the time of her initial appointment and that the Manager had failed to execute the bond in terms **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** **6** 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. In that view of the matter, the impugned order to the extent to which it concerns the petitioner cannot be sustained. Ext.P9 will have to be reconsidered in the light of the law laid down by this Court in **Suma Devi.** Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P11 insofar as it concerns the petitioner will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P9 revision and Ext.P15 representation 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 petitioner, the respondents 5 and 6 and affected parties, if any. While considering the revision petition, the Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon that the Manager would **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** **7** 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. 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. 29972 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29972/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18-08-2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-02-2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-10-2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-02-2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-09-2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-01-2012 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED G.O (P) NO.10/10 GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 12-01-2010. - Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-12-2012 IN WPC 30441 OF 2012. - Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-11-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT . Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-07-2017 IN WA 2290 OF 2015. **WP(C) NO. 29972 OF 2022** **9** Exhibit P13 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.100/J2/2017/ GENED DATED 11-09-2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-05-2019 IN WPC 40491 OF 2018. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/09/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT