Sheetha B vs State Of Kerala,

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The 1st petitioner states that she was appointed as a regular Part-Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher from 4.6.2009 against an additional anticipated

post of Part-Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher in Sree Vitoba High School, Kayamkulam. Due to a ban prevailing at the time against appointment in

additional post, her appointment was rejected. Later, she was included in the Teacher package and her appointment was approved from 1.6.2011.

However, her approval as Part-Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher for the period from 4.6.2009 to 31.5.2011 was rejected for the reason that the

Manager had not executed the bond.

The 2nd petitioner on the other hand was appointed as regular Full-Time Lower Grade Hindi Teacher from 1.6.2010 against an additional

anticipated post of Full-Time Lower Grade Hindi Teacher during 2010-2011 in Sree Vitoba High School, Kayamkulam. The approval to the

appointment of the petitioner was granted only on 1.6.2011 by including him in the teacher package. However, approval was denied for the period

from 1.6.2010 to 31.5.2011 on the ground that the Manager had not executed the bond.

The petitioners contend that they were denied approval and salary from 4.6.2009 to 31.5.2011 and from 1.6.2010 to 31.5.2011 respectively on the

ground that their approval was granted only on 1.6.2011 by including them in the teacher package and owing to the non-execution of bond by the

Manager. This, according to the petitioners, is clearly illegal. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are stated to have preferred Ext.P6 revision

petition before the Government with a prayer to approve the appointments of the petitioners herein. Though various other reliefs are claimed, when the

matter came up for consideration, Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the solitary prayer of the petitioners is

for expeditious consideration of Ext.P6 revision petition by deeming that the manager has executed the bond.

I have heard Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the precedents relied on by the petitioners may not be applicable to the 2nd petitioner as he

was appointed as regular Full-Time Lower Grade Hindi Teacher only on 1.6.2010 whereas the G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. is dated 12.1.2010.

However, it is submitted that all these aspects shall be considered by the 1st respondent while considering the revision.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent

to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 revision petition in the light of the principles laid down in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments of this Court.

Before passing orders, the 1st respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard either virtually or in-person to the petitioners or their authorised

representatives. 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.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for further action..