IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Harsha C. V., D/o. K. Hareesh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary to General Education Department, Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 38266 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Relevant Circulars - Exts.P35 and P36 - Approval of appointments - Petitioners, appointed against regular vacancies of teaching staff, sought approval for their appointments from the date of their appointment, which was initially denied due to non-accommodation of PwD candidates and lack of rosters provided by Managers. (Paras 1 - 4 )
(B) Legal Principle - The court emphasized that the approval of appointments should be reconsidered in light of the Hon,ble Apex Court's order regarding the reservation for Persons with Disabilities, indicating that appointments can be approved on a regular basis despite reserved slots. (Paras 6 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, numbering 33, were appointed against regular vacancies after 08.11.2021 but faced denial of approval for their appointments due to procedural issues.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to reconsider the proposals for approval of the petitioners, appointments and to pass appropriate orders within two months.
Issues: The main issues included the approval of appointments in light of reserved vacancies for PwD candidates and the procedural compliance by the Managers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the approval of appointments should be reconsidered based on the recent Supreme Court order, allowing for regular appointments despite the reservation for PwD candidates.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners, who are 33 in numbers, appointed against regular vacancies of teaching staff which arose after 08.11.2021, are before this Court seeking to direct respondents 3 to 14 to approve the appointment of the petitioners on scale of pay provisionally from the date of their appointments in the light of Exts.P35 and P36 Circulars on submission of rosters and requisitions by respondents 15 to33, within a time frame.
2. It is discernible from the writ petition and arguments on either side that the approval was not granted to the appointment of the petitioners for various reasons including non-accommodation of PwD candidates against reserved vacancies and non-providing of rosters by the Managers.
3. The petitioners would submit that subsequently, the Managers of the School have submitted rosters and requisitions which are produced in this writ petition. In the changed circumstances, their proposals for approval of the appointment are liable to be allowed, contends the counsel for the petitioners.
4. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed out that the appointments are not approved for multiple reasons. The Managers have not appointed PwD candidates against the reserved slots. Furthermore, the rosters were not provided by the Managers.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 14.
6. From the pleadings, it is evident that the Managers have provided certain rosters and requisitions to respondents 3 to 14, who are the Controlling Officers. It is also to be noted that subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.11373/2024 has passed an order dated 04.03.2025 to the effect that if post allocable to the Persons with Disabilities are reserved, then the approval of appointment of other Teachers can be granted on regular basis. In view of the said development also, I am of the view that grant of approval to the petitioners’ appointments is liable to be reconsidered.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 3 to 14 to reconsider the proposals for approval of appointment of the petitioners, which is now on daily wage basis and pass appropriate orders approving the appointment and placing the petitioners in the pay scale in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, provided the petitioners satisfy all other parameters. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months.
AI
The court ruled that appointments can be approved on a regular basis despite reserved vacancies for Persons with Disabilities, following a recent Supreme Court order.
The judgment clarifies that compliance with reservation norms is essential for approving appointments in aided schools.
Court emphasizes the necessity of reconsideration in light of government orders affecting the approval process of appointments under the RPWD Act.
The court reinforced that unfilled vacancies for physically disabled persons should not obstruct the regularization of qualified appointments in educational institutions.
The court recognized the validity of a Government Order affecting the appointment of teachers, emphasizing the need for fair consideration of claims under new circumstances.
The court asserts that daily wage appointments must be considered according to existing legal directives despite prevailing vacancies.
Educational appointment approvals must adhere to statutory and procedural norms, considering legitimate challenges by affected parties.
Employees appointed to posts must be granted pay approval from the date their institution meets economic criteria, irrespective of prior reservations.
The appointment of teachers in aided schools requires reconsideration for pay approval based on established vacancies and compliance with relevant government orders.
The court emphasized the need to comply with statutory provisions regarding appointments under the Persons with Disabilities quota, ensuring timely review of pending appeals.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.