Jikhil Joseph vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P., J

The petitioner is now working as an Assistant Professor in the Government Engineering College, Thrissur. He was earlier working as an Assistant Professor in the third respondent college, which comes under the second respondent namely the Co-operative Academy of Professional Education(CAPE). It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner has been selected and appointed to Government service through Public Service Commission, the obligation of the petitioner to serve the second respondent in terms of a bond executed by him is to be exempted and the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount demanded in terms of Ext.P6 communication issued by the second respondent to the third respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has issued Ext.P9 order on 15.3.2021 which states as follows;

“The bonded obligation of Assistant Professors undergoing LWA for study purpose is waived in respect of those resigned from CAPE service for taking up employment as Assistant Professor through PSC in Government Service.”

It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is also liable to be considered in terms of Ext.P9 order.

This Court had passed the following interim order on 29.11.2019;

“Learned Standing Counsel for R2 and R3 seeks time for taking instructions and filing statement or counter affidavit.

In the meanwhile, if the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.75,000/- and execute a bond in favour of the 2nd respondent, undertaking to pay the balance amount if and when the Court directs so, the documents along with the relieving certificate detained by the 2nd and 3rd respondents shall be released to the petitioner, which will be subject to the result of this writ petition.”

It is not disputed before me that the amount of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) has already been paid by the petitioner, though the bond has not been executed by the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the question as to whether Ext.P9 order as any retrospective application has to be considered.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since the second respondent has issued Ext.P9 order, which indicates that the bonded obligation had been waived in respect of those who joined Government service after selection through PSC, the case of the petitioner is also to be considered in terms of the said order of the second respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the dispute raised in the present writ petition, the second respondent has also not issued any experience certificate to the petitioner, which is necessary for the petitioner to claim promotion in the Directorate of Technical Education. He prays that a direction may be issued to the second respondent to issue experience certificate forthwith.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, this writ petition will stand disposed of with the following directions;

(1) The claim of the petitioner for exemption from bonded obligation shall be considered by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P9 order. A decision shall be taken by the second respondent in the matter and the said decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

(2) The second respondent shall forthwith issue an experience certificate to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.