High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-07Disposed of

Sreepriya P. v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2022-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P14–P16 revision petitions with notice to the petitioners and the 5th respondent, within four months, following the law laid down in Suma Devi (supra). The Secretary to Government may reckon that the manager is deemed to have executed the bond and must appoint from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The orders are subject to the final orders of the Apex Court in pending petitions, and petitioners may produce the judgment copy for further action.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SREEPRIYA.P.
NAVYA.P
BINDU.K.P

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH
THE MANAGER, IRINGAL AUP SCHOOL
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) 16674 of 2022) challenges the treatment and dates of appointment of three LPSAs at Iringal AUP School, Pariyaram. The petitioners contend their appointments were approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 due to a government ban on filling additional division vacancies during 2005–2010, while their initial appointments were earlier (2008–2010). They seek to have their appointments counted from the date of their original appointment, as reflected in Exhibits P1, P5 and P8, and to have revision petitions (P14–P16) decided by the first respondent after affording them opportunity. They rely on prior Kerala High Court judgments that, even in the absence of bonds executed by Managers, the bond can be deemed to have been executed and that they are entitled to be appointed from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The Government Pleader counters that all appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that any non-compliance requires the Manager to execute a bond; several related matters are pending before the Supreme Court. The court cites State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors (Suma Devi) to support the principle that non-execution of bonds can be treated as executed and applies this to direct expeditious disposal of the revision petitions while keeping orders subject to the Apex Court’s final orders. The petition is disposed of with directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Deemed execution of bond by Manager in absence of actual bond
Equal treatment in appointments for protected teachers
Reliance on Suma Devi (supra) for binding principle

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their appointments as LPSAs were initialed and regularized from 01.06.2011 due to a ban on filling additional division vacancies. They rely on prior Kerala High Court rulings and the principle that managers who failed to execute bonds should be deemed to have done so, obliging equal appointments from the protected list. They seek a writ of mandamus to adjudicate their revision petitions (Exhibits P14–P16), arguing that the law is settled and warrants honoring the date of initial appointment (as reflected in Exts P1, P5, P8).

Contentions of Respondents

The government contends that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that any non-compliant appointment requires the manager to execute a bond. Some managers have challenged GO 10/10/2010 in pending Apex Court proceedings. The respondent court emphasizes that pendency before the Supreme Court may affect the outcome and maintains that bonds or their deemed execution should be honored in line with the relevant GO provisions and prior judgments.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors	W.A.No.2111/2015	Positive	Divisional Bench held that non-execution of bond by Managers should be deemed to have been executed, obliging equal appointments to those made during the ban period when their appointments are approved.
W.P.(C) No. 17325 of 2019	W.P.(C) No. 17325 of 2019	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P11 is a High Court judgment cited to support the law invoked; its specific holdings are not fully relied upon in the present decision.

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 Sreepriya P. 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.

**WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 SREEPRIYA.P., AGED 36 YEARS W/O P.S. SREENIVASAN NAMBOOTHIRI, POTTILLAM, PURACHERY, EZHILODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670309. 2 NAVYA.P, EDACHERIYAN HOUSE, PADIYIL, P.O. CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670301. 3 BINDU.K.P, KALATHIL HOUSE, C. POYIL. P.O., AMMANAPPARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670502. BY ADV V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001. 4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141. 5 THE MANAGER, IRINGAL AUP SCHOOL, C. POYIL POST, PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670502. SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are working as LPSAs in the Iringal AUP School, Pariyaram. According to the petitioners, their appointment was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011. Seeking approval of appointment from the initial date, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and command the 1st respondent to adjudicate Exhibits P14 to P16 revision petitions forthwith after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. ii) to declare that as evident from Exhibits P11 to P13 the law involved in the matter is settled and therefore, petitioners are also entitled to get equal treatment by approving their appointment from the date of their original appointment reflected in Exhibits P1, P5 and P8 appointment orders. 2. It is contended by the petitioners that the Government had, as per G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.08.2005, 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 **WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **3** number of teachers appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, would be 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. The petitioners were also included in the package and their appointment was regularized with effect from 01.06.2011. According to the petitioners, 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 had executed the bond. The petitioners contend that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioners have preferred Exts P14 to P16 revision petitions before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision petitions. 3. Sri.V.N Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that it is settled by now that even in cases wherein bonds have not been executed by the Managers, 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. **WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **4** 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 12.01.2010, 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 12.01.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. 5. 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 was approved only with effect from 01.06.2011 on the ground that there was a ban on appointments at the time of their 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 **WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **5** 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: - a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P14 to P16 revision petitions filed by the petitioners with notice to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **Suma Devi** (supra) and Exts P11 to P13. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - b) While considering the representation, the Secretary to Government shall be free to reckon that the manager would be deemed to have executed the bond and also **WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **6** 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 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** IAP **WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16674/2022** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 21-7-2008 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AS LPSA. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.C2735/08/K.DIS DATED 18-8-2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/C/1903/09 DATED 5-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/474/10/K.DIS DATED 3-7-2010 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEO, KANNUR. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1-6-2009 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AS LPSA. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER, K.DIS/C/1899/09 DATED 5-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AEO, TALIPARAMBA NORTH. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/475/10/ K.DIS DATED 3-7-2010 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEO, KANNUR. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1-6-2009 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER AS LPSA. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO. K.DIS/C/1901 DATED 5-12-2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AEO, TALIPARAMBA NORTH. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/478/10/K.DIS DATED 29.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEO, KANNUR. **WP(C) NO. 16674 OF 2022** **8** Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-6-2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 17325 OF 2019. - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(P) NO. 4998/2019/G.EDN DATED 21-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/3602/19/AEO/A DATED 6-8-2020 ISSUE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 7-4-2022 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 13-4-2022. - Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 7-4-2022 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 13-4-2022. - Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 7-4-2022 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 13-4-2022. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL