High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-12Disposed of

Sareena S. Pillai and others v. The State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.32302 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2022-10-12
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. Directions directing the 1st respondent to consider P16–P19 with notice to petitioners and respondents 5–7, decide within three months, applying the principle from Suma Devi; allow reckoning that managers may be deemed to have executed bonds if conditions are satisfied and to appoint from the protected-teacher list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period; all orders are subject to final orders of the Apex Court; petitioners may furnish a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment to concerned authorities.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sareena S. Pillai
R. Suja
S. Bindhu
D.S. Deepakumary

Respondents

The State of Kerala
The Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram-695 015
The Deputy Director of Education, Thevally, Kollam - 691 009
The District Educational Officer, Civil Station, Kollam District - 691 013
The Manager, Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Paripally P.O., Kollam District - 691 574
The Principal, Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Paripally P.O., Kollam District - 691 574
The Vice Principal/Headmistress, Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Paripally P.O., Kollam District - 691 574

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.A. Muhammed
• M. Sajjad

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Four teachers, Sareena S. Pillai, R. Suja, S. Bindhu, and D.S. Deepakumary, challenged non-approval of their appointments at Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Paripally, Kollam, seeking approval from the date of appointment and disbursement of consequential benefits. They were appointed against anticipated posts during a period when a ban on appointments to additional division vacancies prevailed under GO (P) 317/2005, and later the ban was lifted by GO (P) 10/10/G.Edn (12.01.2010) subject to conditions. One key condition required managers to execute a bond ensuring that protected teachers equal to the number of appointments made during the ban period would be appointed; GO 199/2011/G.Edn provided a comprehensive teachers’ package for deployed/protected teachers. The petitioners rely on judgments like State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors (W.A. No. 2111/2015) to argue that bonds need not be strictly executed in every case and that, upon approval, they should be deemed to have been executed. The Government contends that all appointments in additional division vacancies are to be apportioned 1:1 and that bonds must be executed, with some managers challenging GO 10/10 before the Supreme Court. The High Court disposes of the petition with directions to consider revision petitions P16–P19, deem bonds executed if conditions are met, and to make appointments from the protected list in parity with the ban period, subject to Apex Court orders. The petition is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Deemed execution of bonds when bond is not executed (State of Kerala v. Suma Devi)
1:1 ratio for appointments in additional division vacancies (policy embedded in GO 10/10 and related judgments)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners state they were appointed against anticipated posts in Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Paripally, on the strength of Exts P1–P12 and seek approval from the initial date along with disbursement of consequential benefits. They have filed Exts P16–P19 representations seeking expeditious disposal and rely on prior judgments, including Suma Devi, that deems bonds executed in certain circumstances and obliges managers to make an equal number of protected-teacher appointments upon approval during the ban period. They seek immediate approval and arrears, arguing delay causes prejudice to their careers.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government contends that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that, if a bond was not executed, the Manager ought to have executed one in terms of GO 10/10; some managers have challenged GO 10/10 before the Supreme Court; revision petitions may be considered, but there is ongoing apex court litigation. The respondents emphasize that the ban and bond requirements govern the process and that the matter is to be decided in accordance with the law and pending higher-court orders.

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	Court relies on this decision to deem bonds as executed and to require equal protected-teacher appointments, guiding the present directions.

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 Sareena S. Pillai and others 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.

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH]DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA,1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 32302 OF 2022 ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` 1SAREENA S.PILLAI., AGED 50 YEARS W/O V.J. SREEKUMAR, HST (SANSKRIT), AMRITA SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. 2R. SUJA, AGED 40 YEARS W/O R RAVILAL, JUNIOR SANSKRIT, AMRITA SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. 3S. BINDHU, AGED 49 YEARS D/O BHASKARAN PILLAI, HST (SANSKRIT), AMRITA SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. 4D.S. DEEPAKUMARY, AGED 45 YEARS W/O M.R. AJITHKUMAR, HST (SANSKRIT), AMRITA SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEXE -11 , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. ``` 2 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 ``` 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015. 3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THEVALLY, KOLLAM - 691 009. 4THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 013. 5THE MANAGER, AMRITA SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. 6THE PRINCIPAL, AMRITA SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. 7THE VICE PRINCIPAL/HEADMISTRESS, AMRITA SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. ``` ``` SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they have been appointed as teachers in the Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Paripally, against anticipated additional posts on the strength of various orders which have been produced as Exts.P1 to P3, P5 to P9, P11 and P12. They contend that they are entitled to get approval of their appointment from the initial date and for the disbursement of consequential benefits. They contend that they have preferred Exts.P16 to P19 representations before the 1st respondent and seeking expeditious disposal of the same, they have approached this Court with this writ petition. 2. Sri.M.Sajjad, 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 12.01.2010, 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 4 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 appointed. 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. According to the petitioners, similarly placed teachers had approached this Court, and by Exts.P25 to P27 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. 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 submitted that if the limited request is only to consider the revision petitions, there cannot be any impediment. 5 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioners were appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioners were approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 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 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 6 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 disposed of by issuing the following directions: - a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P16 to P19 revision petitions adverting to Exhibits P13, P14 and P20 to P27 with notice to the petitioners as well as the respondents 5 to 7 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 revision petition, the Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon, if all conditions are satisfied, 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. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the final orders passed 7 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 by the Apex Court in the pending petitions. - 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** Sru 8 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32302/2022` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST`| |---|---| ||`PETITIONER DATED 28.08.2003.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2005.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 26.08.2009.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/3110/16/K.DIS`| ||`DATED 30.06.2016 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL`| ||`OFFICER, KOLLAM.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 18.07.2005.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2006.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2007.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 02.06.2008.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2009.`| |`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/3112/16/K.DIS`| ||`DATED 30.06.2016 OF THE DEO, KOLLAM.`| |`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 29.01.2005.`| |`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2006.`| |`Exhibit P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 2290/2015`| 9 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 ||`DATED 25.07.2017.`| |---|---| |`Exhibit P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2091/2018`| ||`DATED 28.06.2019.`| |`Exhibit P15`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.`| ||`60930/J2/11 /G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011.`| |`Exhibit P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY`| ||`THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED`| ||`03.03.2022 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).`| |`Exhibit P17`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY`| ||`THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED`| ||`07.03.2022 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).`| |`Exhibit P18`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY`| ||`THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED`| ||`03.03.2022 ( WITHOUT EXHIBITS).`| |`Exhibit P19`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY`| ||`THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED`| ||`03.03.2022 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).`| |`Exhibit P20`|`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 2981/2021/G.EDN.`| ||`DATED 10.06.2021.`| |`Exhibit P21`|`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 3124/2021/G.EDN.`| ||`DATED 24..06.2021.`| |`Exhibit P22`|`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 3237/2021/G.EDN.`| ||`DATED 02.07.2021.`| |`Exhibit P23`|`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 1264/2022/G.EDN.`| ||`DATED 03.03.2022.`| |`Exhibit P24`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 20948/2020`| ||`DATED 28.10.2020.`| |`Exhibit P25`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.`| ||`23193/2021 DATED 11.11.2021.`| |`Exhibit P26`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 35602/2021`| 10 W.P. (C) No.32302 of 2022 ``` DATED 14.02.2022. ``` ``` Exhibit P27TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 3635/2021 DATED 12.02.2021. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ```