Saleena M. v. State of Kerala and Others

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 ``` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` SALEENA M., L.P.S.A., A.M.L.P. SCHOOL, KARIMPUZHA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD-679 513. ``` ``` BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001.` - `2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.` - `3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD-679 503.` - `4 MANAGER, AMLP SCHOOL, KARIMPUZHA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD-679 513.` ## `SRI PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR GP` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The challenge in this Writ petition is directed against Exhibit P1 order as per which, the request of the petitioner for approval of the appointment for the period from 18.7.2008 to 31.05.2011 stands rejected. The prayer is for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment. 2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as LPSA in an additional Division vacancy in the AMLP School School, Karimpuzha with effect from 18.7.2008. The appointment of the petitioner was made to a newly created post available from the academic year 2008–2009. Relying on Exhibit P2 and P3 staff fixation orders for the academic year 2008–2009 and 2009-2010 respectively, it is contended that a post of LPSA is available in the school. However, 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 3 ``` additional division vacancies. It was in the said circumstances that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was initially turned down. 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. Thereafter the Government issued G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.10.2011 approving the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher’s package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers and in view of the said order, the appointment of the petitioner stood approved from 1.06.2011 onwards. 3. According to the petitioner, teachers similarly placed as the petitioner had approached this Court and by various judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 4 ``` approve the appointment from the date of appointment by deeming that the Manager had executed the bond. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner is stated to have approached the 1st respondent and has filed Exhibit P5 revision petition, seeking approval of their appointments treating that the Manager has executed the bond. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking directions. 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 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 5 ``` Apex Court. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioner claims that she was 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. 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 appropriate directions. ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 6 ``` a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P5 revision petition filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 4th 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. b) While considering the representations, the Secretary to Government shall bear in mind 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 7 ``` 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** sru ``` WP(C) NO. 18044 OF 2022 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18044/2022` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.07.2008 OF THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 27.03.2010. ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-2011 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 13.08.2010. ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.23722/2019 DATED 15.12.2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.05.2022. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ```