Smitha Sathyan v State of Kerala, Director of General Education, Deputy Director of Education, District Educational Officer, Amrita Sanskrit HSS, Parippally

**WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SMITHA SATHYAN AGED 39 YEARS W/O. ARUN SISUPALAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH), AMRITA SANSKRIT HSS, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ELAMBALLOOR RD, THEVALLY NAGAR, KOLLAM - 691 009. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691013. 5 THE MANAGER AMRITA SANSKRIT HSS, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. **WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** **2** SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPSA in the Amrita Sanskrit HSS, Parippally, an aided school under the management of the 5th respondent, with effect from 01.06.2010 onwards. However, the approval of her appointment was rejected on the ground that the appointment was made against an additional post. Later, approval was granted with effect from 01.06.2011. The petitioner’s grievance is with regard to the non-approval of the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.2010. She contends that salary due to the petitioner for the period 01.06.2010 to 31.05.2011 is withheld owing to the said reason. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Government which is stated to be pending. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and pass orders expeditiously within a time frame. 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 among the conditions was that the Managers should execute a consent letter undertaking that in future vacancies, protected teachers **WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** **4** 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 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 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 has executed the bond. The petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner has preferred a representation 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 representation. 3. 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 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. 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 **WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** **5** 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. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioner was appointed during the period when the economic ban imposed by the Government was in force. 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: **WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** **6** - a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 representation filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th 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 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 number of appointments approved during the ban period. The fact that the petition challenging No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 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 petitioner. 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. **WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021 7** 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** NS **WP(C) NO. 29783 OF 2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29783/2021** PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2010. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.06.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 01.11.2021, WITHOUT EXHIBITS. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL