High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-08-31Writ petition disposed of with directions for r...

Sri Annamma Chacko v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2021-08-31
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P9 order set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s revision petition, with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, and to decide in light of the law in Suma Devi. The managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and would have to make appointments from the protected-teacher list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban. The reconsideration must be completed within three months from the receipt of the judgment. It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment for further action.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions for reconsideration of the revision petition in light of Suma Devi; Ext.P9 set aside; bonds deemed executed; three-month deadline for decision.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sr. Annamma Chacko

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Govt. Secretariat (Annexe II), Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Director of Education Kannur, Taliparamba
The District Educational Officer Taliparamba, Kannur
The Corporate Manager Ursuline Convent, Edl. Agency UMI, Kannur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Murali Pallath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Bijoy Chandran

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Sr. Annamma Chacko, a high school teacher responsible for the Headmaster at St. Mary’s Girls High School, Payyanur, seeks judicial direction to obtain approval as High School Assistant (English) for the period 31.12.2007 to 31.05.2011. Promoted to HSA (English) on 31.12.2007, her approval was withheld due to a government ban and later denied in Ext.P9 on the ground that the 5th respondent, the Corporate Manager, had not executed a bond under GO (P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. The petitioner argues that under Rule 43, Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, her appointment was effectively a promotion and she possesses a statutory right to approval; she asserts that she worked in a sanctioned post and drew salary, and that Ext.P8 judgment directing consideration of her revision petition was not properly followed. The respondents contend that appointments during the ban period must be allocated 1:1 and that the bond requirement remains essential; some managers challenge the GO, and related matters are before the Apex Court. The court relies on the Suma Devi precedent, holding that non-execution of bonds should be deemed executed and that managers must make equal numbers of appointments from protected lists for posts approved during the ban. The writ petition is disposed of with directions for reconsideration in light of that doctrine, with a three-month timeline.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 43, Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER)G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bond deemed to have been executed notwithstanding non-execution by Managers
Managers obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that under Rule 43, Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, her appointment as HSA (English) in 2007 was a promotion and carries a statutory right to approval from 31.12.2007. Despite working in a sanctioned post and drawing salary, she was denied approval because the bond required in GO (P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 was not executed by the Manager. She relies on the decision in State of Kerala v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors. to argue that bonds are to be deemed executed even if not formally signed, and seeks Ext.P2 approval and Ext.P9 reversal.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that appointments during the ban must be apportioned 1:1 and that the bond is a mandatory condition for approving protected-teacher appointments. The GO GO(RT) No.2676/2021/G.EdN and GO 10/10/G.Edn. are cited as the basis for requiring bond execution. They also note pending Supreme Court challenges to the GO and argue that Ext.P9 was correctly issued to deny approval due to lack of bond execution.

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	The Division Bench decision is cited and applied to deem bonds executed and require proportional appointments, forming the basis for reversing Ext.P9 and directing reconsideration.

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 Sri Annamma Chacko 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. 13505 OF 2021 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 9TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** SR.ANNAMMA CHACKO AGED 52 YEARS D/O. CHACKO, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER IN CHARGE OF HEADMASTER, ST. MARY'S GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, PAYYANUR, PAYYANUR P. O., KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670307., RESIDING AT ST. MARY'S CONVENT, PAYYANUR, PAYYANUR P. O., KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670307. BY ADV MURALI PALLATH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT (ANNEXE II), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR, THANA P. O., KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670002. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670141. 5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER URSULINE CONVENT, EDL. AGENCY UMI, KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670002. SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021 2** THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021 3** ## **JUDGMENT** The request made by the petitioner to grant approval as HSA (English) for the period from 31.12.2007 to 31.5.2011 was denied on the sole ground that the 5th respondent, Corporate Manager of the School had not executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010. She also has a contention that her appointment as HSA (English) from 2007 onwards was promotion under Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of the KER and this aspect of the matter was not taken note of while issuing Ext.P2 order or while rejecting the claim as per Ext.P9 order. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: - (i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to Ext.P2, Ext.P9 and set aside Ext.P2 to the extent to which it denies approval as HSA(English) for the period from 31.12.2007 to 31.05.2011 and set aside Ext.P9 - (ii) orders declaring that the petitioner is entitled for approval of her appointment as H.S.A (English) from 31.12.2007 onwards instead of 01.06.2011 onwards. - (iii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No.1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as High School Assistant (English) from 31.12.2007 onwards. 2. The petitioner states that she was initially appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in the St. Mary’s Girls High School, Payyannur, an aided school, under the management of the 5th respondent. **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021 4** Later, by Ext.P2 order dated 31.12.2007, the petitioner was promoted and appointed as HSA (English). However, in view of the ban imposed by the Government, approval was not granted. Later, though the appointment of the petitioner from 31.12.2007 was approved with effect from 1.6.2011 by including her in the ‘Teachers Package’, the appointment as HSA (English), for the period from 31.12.2007 to 31.5.2011 remained unapproved. The petitioner contends that she had actually worked during this period in a sanctioned post and had drawn salary as well. It is further contended that as the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (English) with effect from 31.12.2007 was by invoking Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA of the KER, she is legally entitled to get approval from 31.12.2007 instead of 1.6.2011. It is contended that stating all these aspects, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 revision petition before the 1st respondent. She then approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.17772/2020 and by Ext.P8 judgment dated 25.8.2020, directions were issued to the Government to consider the revision petition and take a decision. The petitioner contends that without considering the aspects pointed out by the petitioner and ignoring the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, Ext.P9 order was passed stating that as the Manager has not executed the bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, approval cannot be granted. 3. Sri. Murali Pallath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is settled by now that even in cases wherein, **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021 5** 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. The learned counsel points out that the law laid down by this Court has not been taken note of while passing Ext.P9 order. The learned counsel also pointed out that in view of Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA of the KER, the petitioner is having a statutory right. 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 12.1.2010, 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. 6. 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 **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021 6** 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. A mere perusal of Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent would reveal that the non-execution of the bond was the sole reason for denying the approval. In that view of the matter, Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained. 7. 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) Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent will stand set aside. - b) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the revision petition filed by the petitioner and pass orders 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. - c) While considering the revision petition, the Secretary to **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021 7** Government shall bear in mind 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. - d) 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. **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ps **WP(C) NO. 13505 OF 2021 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13505/2021** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.1998 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.RDIS.B1/4978/07 DATED 28.12.07. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B1/2137/10/K.DIS. DATED 21.03.2011. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 23.08.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.12/AP1/2020-2021 DATED 01.04.2020. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/1842/20 DATED 28.04.2020. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 25.08.2020 IN WP(C) NO.17772 OF 2020. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.2676/2021/G.EDN. DATED 27.04.2021. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL