SMITHA V. AGED 44 YEARS W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, UPSA, ASMM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALATHUR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V T
- Judgment Date
- 2021-10-05
- Court Decision / Holding
- Ext.P8 order will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the revision petition filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders with notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, bearing in mind that managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and 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 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 orders shall be passed expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
- Final Disposition
- The writ petition is disposed of.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- SMITHA V.
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- The Director of Education, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Deputy Director of Education, Civil Station, Kenathup- arambu, MKunathurmedu, Palakkad
- District Educational Officer, Municipal Complex, Robinson Rd, Suth nagar, Palakkad
- The District Educational Officer (Manager-in-Charge), ASMM Higher Secondary School, Alathur
- District Educational Officer, Aluva, Ernakulam Dist.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K. MOHANAKANNAN
- • SMT.T.V. NEEMA
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Case Synopsis & Summary
Smitha v. State of Kerala and others concerns a writ petition challenging Ext.P8, which rejected the petitioner’s claim for approval of her appointment as UPST (Untrained Primary School Teacher) from the initial date of appointment at ASMM Higher Secondary School, Alathur. The petitioner contends she was appointed as UPSA from 15.01.2010 in a newly created post; the DEO approved her appointment from 01.06.2011 by including her in the Teachers Package. She seeks approval from the initial date and consequential benefits. The court earlier directed consideration in light of the law in W.A.No.2290/2015 (Ext.P3) and W.P.(C).No.412/2018. Respondents submit that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and that the appointment was in an additional division vacancy; they argue that bonds must be executed per G.O.(P)10/10/2010 and that appointments should be apportioned 1:1. The petitioner relies on this Court’s decisions, particularly State of Kerala v. V.S. Suma Devi (WA 2111/2015) to assert that bonds may be deemed executed and protection must be extended to equal appointments. The High Court agrees that the sole ground of passing Ext.P8—pendency before the Apex Court—cannot deny relief. Ext.P8 is set aside, and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the revision petition and pass fresh orders within three months, bearing in mind that managers would be deemed to have executed bonds and would be obliged to make appointments from the protected teachers list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The petitioner is permitted to produce copies of the writ petition and judgment for further action. The petition is disposed of.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner submits that even where bonds were not executed, managers may be deemed to have executed bonds and thus are obliged to appoint from the list of protected teachers equal in number to the appointments approved during the ban period, relying on the principle laid down in Suma Devi (WA 2111/2015) and Ext.P3 judgment. She contends Ext.P9 approving other teachers and Ext.P10 confirming similar relief to a comparable case show denial of relief to be unjustified. It was argued that pendency before the Supreme Court cannot bar relief and that Ext.P8 cannot be sustained; the petitioner seeks quashing Ext.P8 and a direction to grant approval from the initial date of appointment with consequential benefits.
Contentions of Respondents
The Government Pleader contends that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1, and where a manager has not executed a bond as per G.O.(P) 10/10/2010, the Manager should have executed such bond; several managers have challenged G.O.(P) 10/10 before the Supreme Court, hence the request was denied; the matter is pending before the Apex Court; the petition for relief is argued to be unmerited given these proceedings.
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 | Court relied on the ratio from Suma Devi (WA 2111/2015) to deem bonds executed and require managers to facilitate appointments from the protected list. |
| W.A.No.2290/2015 | W.A.No.2290/2015 | Positive | Judgment dated 25.07.2017 in W.A.No.2290/2015 is cited as law laid down to be applied in the present case. |
| W.P.(C).No.412/2018 | W.P.(C).No.412/2018 | Mentioned Only | Background reference to earlier petition; cited to show prior directives but not as binding ratio in the present decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 SMITHA V. AGED 44 YEARS W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, UPSA, ASMM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALATHUR 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.