REENA BEEGUM K. v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 13[TH]DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA,1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` REENA BEEGUM K., AGED 45 YEARS WIFE OF NISSAMUDEEN, URDU TEACHER (FULL TIME), BADHIRIYA U.P. SCHOOL, VELICHIKKALA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-69157 (RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNOOR P O, AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691533 BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM @ THEVALLY-691 009. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013. 5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 581. ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022`** ``` 2 ``` ``` 6 THE MANAGER, BADHIRIYA UP SCHOOL, VELICHIKKALA P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-69157. ``` ``` SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON13.01.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that she was appointed as a regular Part-Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher with effect from 01.08.2007 against an additional anticipated post at the Badhiriya U P School, Velichikkala. She asserts that approval of appointment was granted only with effect from 01.06.2011 by including her in the Teachers package. According to the petitioner, the approval for the period from 02.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 stands rejected on the ground that the Manager has failed to execute the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10 dated 12.01.2010. The petitioner asserts that she has preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent and requests that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and take a decision. 2. Sri. M. Sajjad, 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. The learned counsel ``` WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` submits that directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 in the light of the settled precedents. 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 12.01.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. 4. 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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: a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Exhibits P4 and P5 judgments. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ``` 6 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022`** judgment. - b) While considering the representation, 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. - c) 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** PS/13/1/2022 ``` WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33415/2022`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUECOPYOFTHEAPPOINTMENTORDEROFTHE PETITIONER DATED 01.08.2007. ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUECOPYOFTHEAPPOINTMENTORDEROFTHE PETITIONER DATED APPROVAL RECORDED THEREON. Exhibit P3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.C/787/2016/K.DIS. DATED 25.08.2016 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINW.A.NO. 2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017 . Exhibit P5TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINW.A.NO. 2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019 . Exhibit P6TRUECOPYOFTHELETTERNO.60930/ J2/11/G.EDN.DATED25.10.2011OFTHE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P7TRUECOPYOFTHEREVISIONPETITIONFILED BEFORETHEGOVERNMENTDATED30.09.2022ALONG WITH COURIER RECEIPT AFFIXED. Exhibit P8TRUECOPYOFTHEG.O.(P)NO.4/2021/G.EDN. DATED 06.02.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P9TRUECOPYOFTHESTAFFFIXATIONORDER 2008-2009ISSUEDBYTHE5THRESPONDENTDATED 16.01.2009. ``` ``` Exhibit P10TRUECOPYOFTHEREVISEDSTAFFFIXATIONORDER NO.C1542/2010DATED11.08.2010OFTHEAEO, KUNDARA. ``` ``` Exhibit P11TRUECOPYOFTHESTAFFFIXATIONORDER 2009-2010DATED30.07.2009OFTHEAEO, KUNDARA. ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 33415 OF 2022`** ``` 8 ``` ``` Exhibit P12TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.C-1985/2010DATED 12.08.2010OFTHEAEO,KUNDARAALONGWITH TYPED COPY . ``` ``` Exhibit P13TRUECOPYOFTHESTAFFFIXATIONORDER 2010-2011DATED13.08.2010OFTHEAEO, KUNDARA. ```