SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 741

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. R.K.MURALEEDHARAN ATHIRA A.MENON HARISANKAR.K.V.
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. P.VISHNU PRASAD NURIYA O A SIMI C.S.(K/315/2006) REVATHY P. MANOHARAN(K/000669/2014) NABIL KHADER(K/000169/2018) S.R.REMYA(K/329/2010) SRI. TONY AUGUSTINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

(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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top