High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-21Disposed of

Pratheesh Kumar K.T. & Others v. State of Kerala & Ors

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Judgment Date: 2022-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. Ext.P15 to the extent of petitioners is quashed. The Court directs the 1st respondent to reconsider Exts.P10–P14 in light of the law laid down by this Court in Suma Devi (supra). Orders shall be passed expeditiously, within three months, with due notice to petitioners, the 5th respondent, and affected parties. The Government shall reckon that the Manager is deemed to have executed the bond and that appointments from the protected-teacher list be made equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period, subject to final orders of the Apex Court in pending petitions. It is open to petitioners to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pratheesh Kumar K.T.
Asha K. Chellappan
Remya Kamalasanan
Sangeetha T.S.
Nikitha V.G

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram
District Educational Officer, Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam District
Assistant Educational Officer, Vaikom, Kottayam
The Manager, S.M.S.N. Lower Primary School, Vaikom

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Abraham
• Sri. Joseph Gopuran
• Shri. Joby D Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Anima
• Sri. A.N. Rajan Babu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Writ Petition (Civil) arises from a challenge to Ext. P15, which denied approval from the initial date of appointment of five LPSAs at S.M.S.N. Lower Primary School, Vaikom. The petitioners assert that, though appointed during a government ban on appointments, they were later regularised under GO schemes that protected/ deployed teachers, and that other similarly placed teachers were directed by this Court to have their appointments approved from the date of appointment by deeming that the Managers had executed the necessary bonds. The petitioners rely on G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn (ban on appointments), G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn (lifting of the ban with conditions requiring managers to execute consent/bond), and G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn (comprehensive package for deployed/protected teachers); they contend that in several judgments the Court has directed approval from the appointment date by deeming bonds executed, so Ext.P15 cannot stand against them. The State counters that all appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1, and if a protected teacher’s appointment is not made as per the GO, the manager must execute a bond, with some challenges already pending in higher courts. The Court relies on the Suma Devi principle (2017) that non-execution of bonds should be deemed executed, directing reconsideration of Exts.P10–P14 in light of that law, quashing Ext.P15 to the extent it affects petitioners, and ordering expeditious action within three months with due notice, while keeping Apex Court decisions in view.

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.(RT) No. 1645/2021/G.EDNG.O.(P) No.4/2021/G.EDN

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bonds deemed to have been executed by Managers in the absence of actual execution, to ensure compliance with protective/appointment schemes
1:1 apportionment doctrine for additional division vacancies to ensure parity in appointments during the ban period
Deemed execution of bond and obligation to appoint from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the matter was earlier heard in WP(C) No.8083 of 2020, with directions to the first respondent to consider revision petitions and decide. Ext.P15 denying approval from the initial appointment date contradicts the Court’s direction and the practice in similar cases where bonds were deemed executed, resulting in approvals from the initial date. They rely on GO 317/2005, GO 10/10/2010, and GO 199/2011 implementing the protected-teacher package, and argue that authorities have repeatedly directed approvals from the appointment date by deeming bonds executed; therefore Ext.P15 must be quashed and Exts.P10–P14 reconsidered.

Contentions of Respondents

The State submitted that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1; if a protected teacher’s appointment is not made under GO 10/10, a bond is needed. Some managers have challenged GO 10/10/2010 before the Supreme Court; these matters are pending. The Government pleader argued Ext.P15 complied with existing policy and that the ban period’s appointments require conformity with the bond condition; broader vindication requires awaiting Apex Court’s final decision.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors	W.A.No.2111/2015	Positive	Court relies on the Supreme/Division Bench ruling that non-execution of bonds by managers should be deemed executed, obliging them to make appointments equal to those approved during the ban period.
WP(C) No.24286/2020	WP(C) NO.24286/2020	Mentioned Only	Judgment is cited as Exhibit R5(A) and referenced in the Appendix but not discussed in the reasoning.

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 Pratheesh Kumar K.T. & Others v. State of Kerala & Ors 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. 5985 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 PRATHEESH KUMAR K.T. LPSA, S.M.S.N. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141. 2 ASHA K. CHELLAPPAN, LPSA, S.M.S.N. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141 3 REMYA KAMALASANAN, LPSA, S.M.S.N LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141 4 SANGEETHA T.S, LPSA, S.M.S.N. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141. 5 NIKITHA V.G, LPSA, S.M.S.N. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141 BY ADVS. GEORGE ABRAHAM SRI.JOSEPH GOPURAN SHRI.JOBY D JOSEPH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033 **WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** **2** 3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 604 4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 141. 5 THE MANAGER, S.M.S.N. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141 BY ADV SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SMT.ANIMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they were appointed as LPSAs at the S.M.S.N Lower Primary School, Vaikom. The grievance of the petitioners concerns the non-approval of the appointment of the petitioners from the initial date. They have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P15 to the extent of denial of approval from the date of the initial appointment. 2. The petitioners contend that they had approached this Court earlier and had filed W.P.(C) No.8083 of 2020, and by judgment dated 16.03.2020, this Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision petitions and to take a decision. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the revision petitions were heard, and Ext.P15 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** **4** 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 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. According to the learned counsel, in that view of the matter, there was no justification in dismissing the revision petitions on the ground that the manager has not executed any bond. 4. Sri.George Abraham, 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. **WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** **5** 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** **6** 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 petitioners cannot be sustained. Exts.P10 to P14 will have to be reconsidered in the light of the law laid down by this Court in **Suma Devi.** Resultantly, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Ext.P15 insofar as it concerns the petitioners will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Exts.P10 to P14 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, the 5th respondent, and affected parties, if any. 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. 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 petitioners to produce a **WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** **7** 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. 5985 OF 2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5985/2021** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 5.7.2007. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE D.E.O, KADUTHURUTHY ORDER NO.A1/9820/07/K.DIS DATED 12.2.2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE MANAGER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2009. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 5.6.2006. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY ORDER NO.A1/9602/07/K.DIS DATED 12.2.2008 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE MANAGER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.02.2008. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 1.6.2009. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 1.6.2010. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 11.7.2008. **WP(C) NO. 5985 OF 2021** **9** - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2020. - EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2020. - EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2020. - EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2020. - EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2020. - EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O(RT) NO. 1645/2021/G.EDN DATED 15.2.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Exhibit R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.24286/2020 DATED 10-11-2020 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Exhibit R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.4/2021/G.EDN. DATED 6/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.