Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943 WP(C).No.12767 OF 2020(U) PETITIONERS: 1 AJITHA.V., W/O.K.SURESH BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, MUSIC TEACHER, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALLISSERY, P.O.POOVATHUSSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680741. 2 HIMA P.S., D/O.SUKUMARAN P., AGED 33 YEARS, NOW WORKING AT GANDHI SMARAKA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ASHTAMICHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SURESH BABU (KANDENGHAT) RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680125. 3 THE MANAGER, SREENARAYANA PARIPALNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALLISSERY, P.O.POOVATHUSSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680741. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR.GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 12767/20 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of April 2021 The petitioners say that they were working as a Music
Teacher and a High School Assistant (English) respectively in 'Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Higher Secondary School', Pallissery and that they have approached this Court since they have been denied approval from the dates of their initial appointment, but only with effect from 01.06.2011, by including them under the 'Teachers' Package'.
2. The petitioners assert that the Manager of the School had
executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, but that in spite of the same, their appointments have been granted approval only with effect from 01.06.2011. The petitioners add that, as is evident from Exhibit P3, the appointment of a teacher by name Smt.P.B.Neena - made against an additional division vacancy - has been approved by the jurisdictional District
Educational Officer from 12.06.2006, on which day she was appointed, but that they have been discriminated in granting such benefit. They, therefore, pray that Exhibit P4, to the extent to which they have been granted the benefit of approval only from 01.06.2011, WPC 12767/20 3 be set aside and the competent authority be directed to reconsider their case, taking note of the fact that the Manager has already executed a bond in terms of the aforementioned Government Order.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record by the second respondent, wherein the following have been stated:
“It is submitted that the manager SNDP HS Pallissery appointed the 1st petitioner as Music Teacher w.e.f. 04.09.2007 against the additional post for the year 2007-2008. This appointment was limited up to 31.03.2008 in terms of Rule 49 Chapter XIVC of KER. Then the petitioner was re-appointed w.e.f. 02.06.2008 onwards. But the appointment was approved only from 01.06.2011 onwards on the basis of Government Circular No.60930/J2/2011/G.Edn. dated 25.10.2011. The manager executed a bond in terms of GO(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. The appointment of the petitioners were approved from 01.06.2011 onwards by including the name of the petitioners in teachers package in terms of Government Circular No.60930/J2/2011/G.Edn. dated 25.10.2011. The manager filed Revision Appeal before the Government for the
approval of petitioners with the date of appointment as per order
No.GO(Rt)No.367/17/G.Edn. Dated 10.02.2017 to approve the appointment of the petitioners from the actual date of their appointment if the manager obey the condition as per GO(P)No.10/10. But the manager should appoint protected teachers in the school. Hence the approval of appointment of petitioners from the actual date of their appointment was not considered from this office. The appointment of the petitioner not come under the purview of the Government Circular No. J2/194/2019 dated 26.11.2019. As per the direction issued in Government order No.367/17/G.Edn. dated 10.02.2017 this office intimated the manager that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered from their actual date of appointment because the manager did not appoint protected teachers in the school.”
He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. WPC 12767/20 4
4. When I consider the afore submissions and examine the
above extracted averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is clear that the petitioners' request for approval from their initial date of appointments has been denied only because the Manager has not allegedly appointed the requisite number of protected teachers in the school. I am afraid that this stand of the Government in Exhibit P4 cannot find my favour without further scrutiny because, once the Manager had executed a bond as per the stipulations in G.O.(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, then, obviously, approval to the petitioners ought to have been granted with effect from the date of their initial appointments, while the consequences of the Manager allegedly not complying with his undertaking can only flow thereafter.
5. In this case, it is conceded that the Manager had executed
a bond and therefore, if he has not appointed teachers in spite of the undertaking, then, obviously, consequences should follow against him, but cannot be used as a reason to deny approval to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the second respondent-District Educational Officer to reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioners from their WPC 12767/20 5 initial date of appointments de hors Exhibit P4 Government Order and after verifying that the Manager has executed a bond as per the stipulations in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. Needless to say, if the Manger has not appointed teachers as per the undertaking given by him in terms of the aforementioned Government Order, all consequences thereto will be open to be pursued by the respondents appropriately.
Sd/- Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv WPC 12767/20 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02.06.2008 AND APPROVAL THEREOF. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2009 AND APPROVAL THEREOF. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 23.03.2011. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 10.02.2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 11.09.2018 NO.100/J2/2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.4775 OF 13(V) DTED 23.05.2016. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.14141 OF 2013(P) DATED 28.06.2016. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF GENERAL EDUCATION NO.J2/194/19 DATED 26.11.2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B6/2907/16 ISSUED TO MANAGER SNDP H.S.S PALLISSERY BY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE DATED 28.03.2018. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE