SR. REJIMOL JOSEPH v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

**WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SR.REJIMOL JOSEPH AGED 51 YEARS D/O. JOSEPH, H.S.T (HINDI) ST. JOSEPH'S H.S VILAKKUMADAM, PAIKA P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 577 RESIDING AT SERAPHIC F.C CONVENT, PULIYANNOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 573 BY ADV B.MOHANLAL ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,| ||GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001| |2|THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,| ||GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY P.O,| ||THIRUVANANT4HAPURAM-695 014| |3|THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION| ||OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALACE| ||ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001| |4|THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER| ||PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 575| |5|THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER| ||PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 575| |6|THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER| ||ERATTUPETTA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 121| |7|THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER| ||KOZHUVANAL P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 573| **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **2** 8 THE CORPRORATE MANAGER THE CO-OPERATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF PALA, PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 575 SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents in approving the appointment of the petitioner to the post of L.G.P.T Hindi in St.Antony’s U.P.S. Paduva, an aided school under the management of the 8th respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 representation before the 1st respondent. 2. Sri.B. Mohan Lal, 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 12.1.2010, 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. The 8th 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, teachers similarly placed as the petitioner had approached this Court and by various judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to approve **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **4** the appointment from the date of appointment by deeming that the manager has executed the bond. The learned counsel contends 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. It is submitted that though various other reliefs are claimed, the petitioner would be satisfied if necessary directions are issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation in the light of Ext.P10 judgment. 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 further submitted that it is for the 1st respondent to consider whether the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioner claims that she was appointed during the period when the ban was in force. The question as to whether the above Government Order would apply to the **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **5** petitioner herein has to be ascertained by the 1st respondent while considering the revision petition. 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. 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 disposed of by issuing the following directions: a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up Exhibit P11 representation submitted by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 8th respondent and take a decision, as per procedure and in accordance with the law. Appropriate 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. **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **6** 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 G.O.(P) No.10/10 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. - 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** IAP **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26309/2021** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: |Exhibit P1|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER| |---|---| ||DATED 29-07-2002 ISSUED BY THE 8TH| ||RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO. C| ||1570/04/K.DIS DATED 24-09-2004 ISSUED BY| ||THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P2|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER| ||DATED 14-06-2004 ISSUED BY THE 8TH| ||RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO. C| ||1902/04/K.DIS DATED 11-08-2004 ISSUED BY| ||THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P3|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE| ||SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING| ||THE APPROVAL OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE| ||PERIOD FROM 18-07-2005 TO 31-03-2006 IN| ||ST. JOSEPH'S U.P.S KANNADIURUMP, PALA| |Exhibit P4|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER| ||DATED 05-06-2006 ISSUED BY THE 8TH| ||RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO.| ||C/2012/2006/K.DIS DATED 31-07-2006 ISSUED| ||BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER| |Exhibit P5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-| ||4333/2007/K.DIS DATED 14-09-2007 ISSUED BY| ||THE 4TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P6|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.| ||B3/21894/07/D.DIS DATED 05-01-2008 ISSUED| ||BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P7|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER| ||DATED 13-10-2009 ISSUED BY THE 8TH| ||RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO. C| ||2209/09/K.DIS DATED 04-01-2010 ISSUED BY| ||THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P8|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER| ||DATED 15-07-2010 ISSUED BY THE 8TH| ||RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO. C-| ||2190/10/K.DIS DATED 02-11-2010 ISSUED BY| ||THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| **WP(C) NO. 26309 OF 2021** **8** Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C- 2099/2015/K.DIS DATED 07-10-2015 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 09-08-2019 IN W.A NO. 300/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-10-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL