Girija Devi E vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

By Ext.P1 order the petitioner was appointed as LPSA in an additional division vacancy with effect from 20.7.2007 at the V.V. Lower Primary School, Chunangad an aided school under the management of the 4th respondent. Her grievance in this writ petition concerns the non-approval of her appointment from 20.7.2007 to 31.5.2011, on which day, the petitioner was included in the Teachers Package and her appointment was approved.

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 equal to the number of teachers, appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10, would be appointed. The 4th 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 01.10.2011 approving the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher's package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioner was also included in the package and her appointment was regularised with effect from 1.6.2011. 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 had executed the bond. The petitioner contends that relying on the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition 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 revision petition.

Dr. George Abraham, 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.

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 submitted that if the limited request is only to consider the revision petition, there cannot be any impediment.

I have considered the submissions advanced. The writ petitioner was appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, was in force. The appointment of the petitioner was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 on the ground that there was a ban on appointments at the time of her 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 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.

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 Exhibit P3 revision petition filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 4th 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 revision petition, the Secretary to 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. 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 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.