High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-09-02Disposed of

Saleeja Beevi S v The State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2022-09-02
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (a) The 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P7 revision petition with notice to the petitioner and 6th respondent, within four months, in light of the law laid down in Suma Devi (supra). (b) While considering, reckon that the manager 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; orders subject to final apex court orders. (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.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saleeja Beevi S

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government General Education Department, Secretariat Annexe-II, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram-695014
The Deputy Director of Education, Kollam @ Thevally-691009
The District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara, Kollam District-691506
The Assistant Educational Officer, Kundara, Kollam District-691501
The Manager Maranad Native Upper Primary School, Nedumpaikulam, Kundara P.O., Kollam District-691501

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.A. Muhammed
• V. Rajasekharan Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Nisha Bose, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Saleeja Beevi S, challenges the non-approval of her appointment as regular Part‑Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher in the Maranad Native Upper Primary School, an aided institution managed by the 6th respondent. Appointed from 15.07.2006 against an anticipated post during a period when a government ban on appointments in additional division vacancies existed, her appointment was finally regularized with effect from 01.06.2011 under the competency package for deployed/protected teachers. The government had imposed a ban via G.O.(P)317/2005/G.Edn (17.08.2005) and later lifted it through G.O.(P)10/10/G.Edn (12.01.2010) subject to conditions, including a bond requirement from managers. The petitioner asserts that such cases have consistently been directed to deem the bond executed and to appoint from the protected list in proportion to the number of appointments approved during the ban, a position supported by this Court’s decisions in past judgments. Reliance is placed on the 2011 teacher’s package and judgments directing deeming of bonds where not executed. The Government submits that appointments in such vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that managers should have executed a bond, with some challenges pending in apex court. The Court ultimately disposes the petition with directions to consider Ext. P7 in light of Suma Devi’s doctrine, keeping all orders subject to final apex court orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.08.2005G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn. dated 01.06.2011G.O.(P) 4/2021/G.Edn. dated 06.02.2021

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

In the absence of bond execution by the manager, 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 (Suma Devi doctrine).
1:1 apportionment of appointments in additional division vacancies as per government orders; reliance on the protective-bond framework.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that she was appointed during the ban period and, though regularized later under the comprehensive teacher’s package, the practice of deeming bonds executed should apply to managers who failed to execute bonds, thereby obliging them to appoint from the protected list in the number corresponding to appointments approved during the ban. Citing Suma Devi (supra) and prior judgments, she seeks a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P7, with expeditious action within four months, and to reckon the deemed bond accordingly, while noting that apex court proceedings may affect the final outcome.

Contentions of Respondents

The government counsel submits that appointments in additional division vacancies require a 1:1 apportionment and that managers must have executed the bond; they highlight that some matters challenging G.O.(P)10/10 are before the Apex Court. They urge adherence to the bond framework and emphasize that current orders should await final apex court rulings, cautioning that extending relief beyond the bond framework may undermine ongoing litigation.

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	The Division Bench held that in cases where bonds were not executed by managers, it should be deemed that bonds were executed and managers were obliged to make appointments from the protected list, i.e., a direct precedent supporting the petitioner's argument.
Judgment in W.A. No. 2290/2015	W.A.No.2290/2015	Mentioned Only	Cited as Exhibit P4; the judgment is referenced but its holdings are not explicitly discussed or applied in the current decision.
Judgment in W.A. No. 2091/2018	W.A.No.2091/2018	Mentioned Only	Cited as Exhibit P5; the judgment is referenced without explicit treatment in the decision.

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 Saleeja Beevi S v The 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.

**WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SALEEJA BEEVI S AGED 38 YEARS WIFE OF NAJEEM.A, FULL TIME LOWER GRADE URDU TEACHER, MARANAD NATIVE UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEDUMPAIKULAM, KUNDARA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691501 (M.9074613714) BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 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, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 506 5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 501 **WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **2** 6 THE MANAGER MARANAD NATIVE UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEDUMPAIKULAM, KUNDARA P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691501 SMT NISHA BOSE, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that she was appointed as regular Part-Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher against an additional anticipated post of Part Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher in the Maranad Native Upper Primary School, an aided school under the management of the 6th respondent, with effect from 15.07.2006 onwards. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the non-approval of her appointment from the initial date. 2. It is contended by the petitioner 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 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. **WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **4** 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 petitioner was also included in the package, and her appointment was regularised with effect from 01.06.2011. 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 had executed the bond. The petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision petition. 3. Sri. V.A. Muhammed, 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 **WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **5** 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. 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. 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. 5. 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 **WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **6** 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 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. 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 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P7 revision petition filed by **WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **7** 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 Suma Devi (supra). Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. b) 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. c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy **WP(C) NO. 28817 OF 2022** **8** 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. 28817 OF 2022** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28817/2022** |PETITIONER(S)|EXHIBITS :| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE| ||PETITIONER DATED 15.07.2006.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/48/ 2012/D.DIS.| ||DATED 04.01.2012 OF THE AEO, KUNDARA| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/1167/16/K.DIS| ||DATED 12.07.2016 OF THE AEO, KUNDARA| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.| ||NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.| ||NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 60930/| ||J211/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011 OF THE| ||GOVERNMENT| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED| ||BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 31.07.2022| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO. 4/2021/G.EDN.| ||DATED 06.02.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2006-| ||2007 DATED 11.09.2006 ISSUED BY THE AEO,| ||KUNDARA| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2007-| ||2008 DATED 07.01.2008 ISSUED BY THE AEO,| ||KUNDARA| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2008-| ||2009 DATED 26.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE AEO,| ||KUNDARA| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2009-| ||2010 DATED 10.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE AEO,| ||KUNDARA| |Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2010-| ||2011 DATED 25.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE AEO,| ||KUNDARA| RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL