P.J. John v. State of Kerala and Ors.

**WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** P.J. JOHN., AGED 51 YEARS, HST HINDI, ST. MICHAEL'S HIGH SCHOOL, KAVIL, PATTANAKAD, ALAPPUZHA 688 531. BY ADVS. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH K.S.ROCKEY TONY AUGUSTINE GEORGE RENOY ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 524. 3 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ARCHDIOCESAN CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY, RENEWAL CENTRE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 017. **==> picture [257 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Being aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order, by which the 1st respondent has rejected the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as HST from the date of appointment on the ground that the Manager had not executed the bond as stipulated in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 and also due to the pendency of the matters before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent appointed the petitioner on 1.6.2009 in an additional division vacancy as per Ext.P1 order. Later, the 2nd respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2011 onwards by including him in the Teachers Package. He contends that a revision petition was preferred seeking approval from the date of appointment onwards which stands rejected by Ext.P4 order. 3. The petitioner contends 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 **WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021 4** 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 3rd 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. The petitioner was also included in the package and his appointment was regularised with effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioner, teachers similarly placed as he 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 has executed the bond. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 19223/2020 seeking to approve his appointment. This Court by Exhibit P3 judgment directed the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition and pursuant to the same, Ext.P4 order was passed. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P4 and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2009 onwards deeming that the Manager has executed the **WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021** **5** bond. 4. Sri. Augustine Joseph, 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 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. The learned counsel points out that the law laid down by this Court has not been taken note of while passing Ext.P4 order. 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 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced. 7. The writ petitioner was appointed during the period when the ban, **WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021 6** 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 his 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. A mere perusal of Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent would reveal that the non-execution of the bond and the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were the reasons stated for denying the approval. I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondents cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court. Insofar as the pendency of the petitions instituted by the Managers before the Hon’ble Apex Court is concerned, the orders passed by this Court shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Apex Court in the pending litigation. 8. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ **WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021 7** 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) Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent will stand set aside. - b) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the revision petition filed by the petitioner and pass orders with notice to the petitioner as well as the 3rd 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. - c) While considering the revision petition, the Secretary to Government shall bear in mind 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. 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. 15553 OF 2021 8** d) 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** **DSV** **WP(C) NO. 15553 OF 2021 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15553/2021** PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009 OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 20.08.2020 PENDING BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.2020 IN WPC NO. 19223 OF 2020. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.7.2021 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL