High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of
Rasiya P.K. and Salini P L.P.S.A. v State of Kerala and others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 27410 of 2021
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
- Judgment Date
- 2021-12-02
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of with directions: (a) The 1st respondent to take up Exhibits P9 and P10 revision petitions with notice to the petitioners and the 5th respondent and decide as per law within three months; (b) The Secretary to Government may consider whether GO 10/10/G.Edn. applies; if it does, the 1st respondent may deem the bonds to have been executed and must ensure appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period, while noting pending Supreme Court decisions; (c) Petitioners may produce a copy of the writ petition along with this judgment before the concerned respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of, with orders subject to the final orders of the Supreme Court.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rasiya P.K.
- Salini P L.P.S.A.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Director of General Education, Office of the Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram
- District Educational Officer, Kozhikode
- Assistant Educational Officer, Kozhikode Rural
- Manager, Perumanna ALP School, Kozhikode district
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. Poovamulle Parambil AbdulKareem
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Nisha Bose, Sr. GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, two teachers (an Arabic Teacher and a LPSA) at Perumanna ALP School, Kozhikode, challenge the handling of their appointments and seek revision of earlier orders under a framework governing postings during a government ban on recruitment. Their appointments began in 2008–2009 and were regularized with effect from 1.6.2011 after GO-based provisions implemented a comprehensive teacher package for deployed/protected teachers. The petitioners allege that their appointments occurred during the ban period and contend that subsequent orders that require bonds and 1:1 apportionment should apply, with many protected teachers treated as eligible for appointment from the list of protected teachers. The government contends that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that managers must execute bonds; some managers’ challenges to GO 10/10 are pending before the Supreme Court. The court refers to a binding Division Bench decision in Suma Devi and Ors., which held non-execution of bonds by managers should be deemed as executed, obliging the manager to make equivalent appointments from the protected list when appointments made during the ban are approved. The court disposes of the petition by directing the 1st respondent to decide the revision petitions within three months, considering the applicability of GO 10/10 and deeming bonds where appropriate, while keeping in view pending Supreme Court proceedings. The outcome is subject to the Supreme Court’s final order, and the petitioners may produce the judgment before authorities for action.
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. 4/2021/G.EDN dated 06.02.2021Circular No. 100/J2/2017/G.EDN dated 11.09.2018
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- In cases where bond execution by a Manager is not effected, the bond is deemed to have been executed and the Manager is obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period.
- Appointments in additional division vacancies should be apportioned in a 1:1 ratio between vacancies and protected teachers.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend they were appointed during the ban period under the Government orders and seek revision of their appointments. They assert that even where bonds were not executed, courts have held bonds to be deemed executed for purposes of protection, obliging managers to appoint from the protected list. They seek consideration of their Exhibits P9 and P10 revision petitions by the 1st respondent, with appropriate action within a specified period, and urge that GO 10/10 should apply to grant them the benefits of the comprehensive teacher package from 1.6.2011 onward.
Contentions of Respondents
The Government Pleader submits that all appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that managers should have executed bonds; appeals against GO 10/10 are pending before the Supreme Court; it is for the 1st respondent to determine whether petitioners are entitled to the benefits of GO 10/10.
Cited Precedents (3)
| 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 bond by the Manager should be deemed executed, obliging the Manager to make an equal number of appointments from the protected list when appointments made during the ban are approved. |
| W.A. No. 2592/2015 | W.A. No. 2592/2015 | Positive | This Court’s judgment relied upon to justify the deeming of bond execution and entitlement to appointments from the protected list. |
| WP(C) No. 26313/2021 | WP(C) No. 26313/2021 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P11 is a judgment in WP(C) No. 26313/2021; cited as a related decision but not used as authority in the ruling. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Rasiya P.K. and Salini P L.P.S.A. 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.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021**
## **PETITIONERS :**
1 RASIYA P.K. AGED 47 YEARS ARABIC TEACHER (FULL TIME), PERUMANNA A.L.P SCHOOL, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673026. 2 SALINI P L.P.S.A, PERUMANNA A.L.P SCHOOL, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673026. BY ADV. SRI. POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
## **RESPONDENTS :**
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014. 3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE - 673004. 4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE RURAL, PUTHIYARA POST, KOZHIKODE - 673004.
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021 2**
5 MANAGER PERUMANNA ALP SCHOOL, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673026.
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021**
**3**
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioners are teachers working as Arabic Teacher (Full Time) and LPSA in Perumanna ALP School with effect from 06.06.2008 and 1.06.2009 respectively. Their appointments were approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 by including them in the teacher’s package. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are stated to have preferred Exts.P9 and P10 revision petitions before the 1st respondent. Their prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the revision petitions.
2. Sri. P.P.Abdul Kareem, the learned counsel submitted 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. The 5th 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
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021**
**4**
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 1.6.2011. According to the petitioners, teachers similarly placed as the petitioners 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 learned counsel contends 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.
3. 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. It is further submitted that it is for the 1st
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021**
**5**
respondent to consider whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefits of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioners claim that they were appointed during the period when the ban was in force. The question as to whether the above Government Order would apply to the petitioners herein has to be ascertained by the 1st respondent while considering the revision petitions. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, 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.
5. 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:
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021**
**6**
- a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up Exhibits P9 and P10 revision petitions submitted by the petitioners with notice to them and the 5th respondent and take a decision, as per procedure and in accordance with the law, 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 petition, the Secretary to Government shall consider whether G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 would apply and if it applies, the 1st respondent shall be free to reckon 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. The fact that the petition challenging G.O.(P) No.10/10 filed by the Managers is pending consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall not be taken as a ground to deny the benefits to the petitioners. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending petitions.
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021 7**
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**
NS
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021**
**8**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27410/2021**
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
- EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS/C/4717/11 DATED 03.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
- EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
- EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C -1707/09/K.DIS DATED 25.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
- EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 60930/J2/G.EDN DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
- EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2017 IN W.A.NO. 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
- EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 100/J2/2017/G.EDN DATED 11.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
- EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO. 4/2021/G.EDN DATED 06.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
- EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 30.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
- EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 30.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
**WP(C) NO. 27410 OF 2021 9**
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2021 IN WP(C) NO. 26313/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO. D.DIS/1659/09/C. DATED 30.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL