Preetha Kumari.P v State of Kerala and Ors.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 30[TH]DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 6593 OF 2020`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` PREETHA KUMARI.P AGED 43 YEARS W/O.REGHUNATHAKURUP, SAISIVAM, CHUNAKKARA NADUVIL, CHUNAKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 534. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.K.ABDUL NASSAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-685 001. ``` ``` 2THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICINSTRUCTION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-685 014. ``` W.P.(C).No.6593/2020 2 - `3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPPUZHA-688 001.` - `4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 101.` ``` 5THE MANAGER C.B.M. HIGH SCHOOL, P O NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA-680 504. ``` ``` BY SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON30.11.2021,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C).No.6593/2020 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to recognise and regularise the service of the petitioner as UPSA from 05/06/2006 and for directing the said respondents to allow the pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period from 05/06/2006 to 31/05/2007 and for consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as probationary teacher on a pay of ₹ 6680/- per mensem and was posted as UPSA on 05/06/2006 in the CBM High School, Nooranadu in an additional division vacancy as per Exhibit P1 order. It is contended that by Exhibit P2 letter, the 5th respondent was informed by the 4th respondent that the appointment of the petitioner has been rejected due to non sanctioning of posts. Later, Exhibit P3 representation was submitted by the 5th respondent seeking consideration of the proposal for appointment and to regularise the same with effect from 05/06/2006 onwards. However, by Exhibit P4 order, the request was rejected in view of the economic ban imposed by order dated 17/8/2005. The petitioner contends that the 5th respondent thereafter submitted Exhibit P5 representation before the Government. It is contended that thereafter the 5th respondent has issued Exhibit P6 appointment order W.P.(C).No.6593/2020 4 on 01/06/2007 appointing the petitioner as a probationary teacher and she was posted as UPSA in the same school with effect from 01/06/2007 onwards. While working as aforesaid, the fifth respondent issued Exhibit P8 appointment order dated 11.6.2018 appointing the petitioner as UPSA under its management for the period from 11.06.2018 to 10.06.2023 and she has been continuing as such. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking regularisation of the services of the petitioner as UPSA teacher with effect from 05.06.2006 and for incidental directions. 3. Sri Shiraz Abdulla M.S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while rejecting the request by Exhibit P4 order, the 2nd respondent relied on the economic ban imposed by the Government. It is contended 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 W.P.(C).No.6593/2020 5 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. 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 has executed the bond. The petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, it is only just and proper that the respondents consider the request made by the petitioner and take a decision. 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 made in accordance with the provisions of the Government Order. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioner was appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to W.P.(C).No.6593/2020 6 G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, was in force. 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. 6. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this 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 petitioner shall approach the 1st respondent and file a representation detailing his grievances within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. If such a representation is filed, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass orders with notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Suma Devi (supra). A decision shall be taken W.P.(C).No.6593/2020 7 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 representation, 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. 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 W.P.(C).No.6593/2020 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6593/2020`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P2COPYOFTHEREJECTIONOFTHE APPOINTMENT. EXHIBIT P3COPYOFTHEAPPROVALOFAPPOINTMENT REQUEST. EXHIBIT P4COPYOFTHEREJECTIONOFTHE APPOINTMENT. EXHIBIT P5COPY OF THE LETTER COST. EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P7COPYOFTHEPROCEEDINGSDIST, EDUCATION OFFICER. EXHIBIT P8COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. ```