Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32706
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
RESHMI JOSE P – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 23178/2015
A manager's failure to execute a bond cannot impede the approval of appointments for teachers in regular sanctioned vacancies.
Headnote:
Approval - Appointment - G.O.(P) No.10/10 - The court criticized the refusal to approve appointments due to the non-execution of a bond, emphasizing that teachers appointed against regular vacancies should not suffer from the manager's failure to comply.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought approval for her appointment effective from 02.06.2008, which was only approved from 01.12.2010 due to the manager's failure to execute a required bond.
Issues: Whether the non-execution of a bond by the school manager can justify the delay in approving the appointment of a teacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that teachers in regular vacancies should not be penalized for administrative failures concerning bond execution.
Final Decision: The petitioner's appointment is approved effective 02.06.2008 with all consequential benefits.
J U D G M E N T
The substantial prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment i.e. 02.06.2008. Her appointment was approved only with effect from 01.12.2010. The reason stated in the Government order is that the Manager has not executed a bond as provided in G.O.(P) No.10/10 Gen.Edn dated 12.1.2010.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.
3. It is contended that this Court has considered the issue and has directed that in cases where Manager had not executed a bond in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10, it is to be deemed that such bond has duly executed by the Manager and the appointments of persons appointed against regular vacancies are to be approved with effect from the initial date of appointment itself. It is further submitted that this view has been reiterated and affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court as well.
W.P.(C).No.23178/15
4.I have considered the contentions advanced. Petitioner was admittedly appointed as HSA (Maths) in the 5th respondent school as per Ext.P1 with effect from 2.6.2008. There is no reason stated for refusal to approve her appointment from the initial date of her appointment except that the Manager has not executed a bond as provided in G.O. (P) No.10/10. This Court has on more occasions than one held that teachers appointed against regular vacancies cannot be put to difficulties only because the Manager did not execute a bond as provided in the G.O(P) No.10/10. I am in respectful agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court has in W.A. No.2592/2015 held that refusal on the part of the Manager to execute a bond cannot be a reason for denying approval and salary to the teachers appointed against the regular sanctioned vacancies.
5. In the above view of the matter, Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P12 orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 2.06.2008 and to grant her all consequential benefits. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period W.P.(C).No.23178/15 of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Monetary benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
