High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-12-03Writ petition disposed of pending Supreme Court...

Renu K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2021-12-03
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed; Exts. P1, P2, P3, P5, P6 quashed; the 1st respondent must reconsider Exhibit P3 and pass fresh orders in light of the decision in V.S. Suma Devi and Ors. The Secretary to Government should determine applicability of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. If applicable, the managers are deemed to have executed the bond and must make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban. The orders are subject to the Supreme Court's final decision in pending petitions. The petitioners may submit copies of the judgment and writ petition for further action. The matter is disposed of with a three-month window for action.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of pending Supreme Court decision; directions issued to reconsider and pass fresh orders within three months, with notice to parties.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RENUKA K.
SHAMEERA.M
SHERAFUNNEESA.T.M
SUJA.R
MUMTHAZ BEEGAM.R

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram
District Educational Officer, Palakkad
Assistant Educational Officer, Palakkad
Manager, S.N.U.P.School, Kodunthirappully, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Abraham
• Sri. Joseph GOPURAN

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Bijoy Chandran, Sr GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, five teachers (L.P.S.A. and U.P.S.A.) at S.N.U.P. School, Kodunthirappully, Palakkad, challenge the delay in approving their appointments and seek retroactive recognition from their original appointment dates. They were appointed during the period when a ban on appointments in additional division vacancies had been in force (2006-2010). The petition relies on Government orders: GO (P) 317/2005 restricting appointments in additional division vacancies; GO (P) 10/10/G.Edn. (2010) lifting the ban subject to conditions, including that the manager execute a bond ensuring that in future vacancies, protected teachers equal to the number of appointments during the ban would be appointed from the protected list; and GO 199/2011/G.Edn (2011) introducing a comprehensive teacher’s package and regularising these appointments from 1.6.2011. The petition asserts that, in several judgments, the court has directed that appointments should be approved from the date of appointment by deeming that managers have executed the bond. The Government revision petition was rejected, but the petition argues that the law requires treating the bond as executed and permitting appointments accordingly. The opposite view is that the 1:1 apportionment and bond requirements must be enforced, and pending Supreme Court litigation on G.O.10/10 is relevant. The court ultimately allows the petition, quashes several exhibits, and directs reconsideration in light of the Suma Devi decision, with a three-month window and notice to parties; the orders remain subject to Supreme Court outcomes.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O (P) No.317/2005/G.Edn.G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.06.2011

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Deemed execution of bonds by managers in absence of actual execution
1:1 ratio of appointments in additional division vacancies (protected teachers)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their initial appointments were made during the ban on appointments in additional division vacancies (2006-2010). They seek approval from the original appointment date, arguing that authorities have repeatedly held that managers’ non-execution of bonds should be deemed as bonds, and that the list of protected teachers should be used to fill vacancies arising during the ban. They note that the government later regularized their service from 1.6.2011 under the comprehensive teacher's package (G.O. 199/2011) and rely on various judicial pronouncements directing that appointments prior to the ban should be approved from the appointment date even when bonds were not executed. The petition requested quashing Exts P1, P2, P3, P5, P6 and directing the government to process their requests. They argue that the pendency of challenges to G.O.10/10 in Supreme Court should not deny relief in the present petition.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned in a 1:1 ratio. If the protected-bond provisions under G.O.10/10 are not followed, the Manager should execute a bond. They further argue that several managers have challenged G.O.10/10 in the Supreme Court and those matters are pending; thus relief should be considered within the context of those proceedings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors	W.A.No.2111/2015	Positive	Held that when a bond is not executed by a manager, it should be deemed as executed, and managers must make equal numbers of appointments from the protected list when the ban-period appointments are approved.

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 Renu K. and Others 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 FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1RENUKA K. AGED 40 YEARS L.P.S.A, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 2SHAMEERA.M, U.P.S.A, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 3SHERAFUNNEESA.T.M, L.P.S.A, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 4SUJA.R, L.P.S.A, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 5MUMTHAZ BEEGAM.R, L.P.S.A, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. GEORGE ABRAHAM SRI.JOSEPH GOPURAN ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. 2DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 3DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001. 4ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001. 5MANAGER, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD-678004. ``` ``` SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON03.12.2021,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that the 2nd petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A and the petitioners 1, 3, 4 and 5 were appointed as L.P.S.As in the S.N.U.P School, Kodunthirappully, an aided school under the management of the 5th respondent in additional division vacancies. Their grievance is that the approval of their appointments was granted only with effect from 1.6.2011. The petitioners are before this Court seeking approval of their appointment from the original date of their appointment. 2. Dr. George Abraham, 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 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 had 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. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Government and their request was rejected by Ext.P7 order. The only reason given for rejecting their request was that the challenge raised by the Managers against G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel contends that the said order cannot be sustained in view of the law ``` WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020 ``` ``` 5 ``` laid down by this Court in a series of decisions. 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. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioners claim that they were appointed during the period when the ban was in force. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The following order is passed. a) Exts.P1, P2, P3 P5 and P6 are quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the Exhibit P3 revision petition and pass fresh orders in the light of the law laid down in **V.S.Suma Devi and Ors (supra).** Orders shall be passed with notice to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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. 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** avs ``` WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2020 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 809/2020`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12.11.2007` - `EXHIBIT P2` - `TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.06.2018` - `EXHIBIT P3` - `TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER` - `EXHIBIT P4` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,PALAKKAD DATED 17.01.2007 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5 ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2009` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2010` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 1/11/2019.` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(C)NO.19693/19.`