Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Jayamohan M., S/o. Mohanan Nair & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary to Government, General Education Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 43850 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2025
For the Petitioner: M.V.S. Nampoothiry, Aswathy Bose.
For the Respondent: Sri. Premchand R. Nair, Sr. Government Pleader.
Increased workload in schools justifies the upgradation of teaching posts, and such upgradation should take effect from the academic year when the workload is sufficient.
Headnote:(A) Education Act - Upgradation of Teaching Posts - The petitioners, 28 Teachers appointed as HSST (Junior), sought upgradation to HSST based on increased workload in Higher Secondary Schools. The court recognized that if workload justifies, posts should be upgraded. The petitioners were entitled to similar benefits as others in comparable positions. (Paras 3, 5, 7)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that upgradation of posts should take effect from the academic year when sufficient workload justifies it, as established in prior judgments. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as HSST (Junior) and argued for upgradation based on workload, citing similar cases where other Teachers received such benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that if the Managers propose approval for the petitioners' appointments as HSST, the 3rd respondent must consider and approve them, subject to verification of qualifications.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to upgradation of their posts based on increased workload.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that increased workload justifies the upgradation of posts and that the Managers must propose appointments for approval.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for approval of appointments.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners, who are 28 in number, are Teachers working in various Aided Higher Secondary Schools. The petitioners were appointed as HSST (Junior).
2. The Government decided to sanction starting of new Higher Secondary Schools in Government and Aided Sectors in the year 2010. Sanction was also accorded for engaging Guest Lecturers in the newly sanctioned Higher Secondary Schools till Regular Teaching posts were created. Thereafter, the Director of Higher Secondary Education forwarded the proposal to the Government for creation and upgradation of Teaching posts and Lab Assistant posts for the academic year 2011-2012 in the Aided Higher Secondary Schools sanctioned by the Government. As per the proposal forwarded by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, the posts were to be created and upgraded in various Higher Secondary Schools.
3. The petitioners submit that they were all initially appointed as HSST (Junior) and their appointments were approved as HSST (Junior) as per Exts.P2 to P29. The petitioners would contend that there are sufficient working hours in the Higher Secondary Schools, which will justify creation of HSST post in a higher pay scale. As per the law laid down by this Court and followed by the Government of Kerala, as and when the workload of a School increases justifying creation of HSST post, the post should be upgraded as HSST.
4. The petitioners state that upgradation of posts are justified in the Schools where the petitioners are working. Similarly situated Teachers in other Higher Secondary Schools were granted upgradation as HSST. The respondents have passed orders directing that such Teachers, whose posts are upgraded as HSST, should be given seniority with effect from the date of upgradation of posts.
5. The petitioners relied on Ext.P30 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.20849/2013. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in similar circumstances, this Court has held that the Government Orders according sanction for upgradation prospectively cannot be justified and such upgradation shall have effect from the commencement of the academic year when sufficient workload was available justifying such upgradation. The petitioners are similarly situated and are entitled to get similar benefits, contended the counsel for the petitioners.
6. Senior Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader urged that even though upgradation of posts as HSST is justified, for granting approval to the appointment of the petitioners as HSST, there should be an appointment as HSST by the Manager and a proposal for approval of such appointment. If such proposals are there, the appointment as HSST can be justified, provided the petitioners satisfy all other statutory parameters.
7. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents, I find that the legal issue raised by the petitioners is not in serious dispute. If workload is increased in a School, then the posts of HSST (Junior) are to be upgraded. The issue is only about appointment against that post and making a proposal for approval for such appointment by the respondents. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions, taking note of Ext.P30 judgment also.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing that if the Managers of the Schools, where the petitioners are working, make a proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioners as HSST, then the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and grant approval to the appointments, provided the petitioners satisfy all other parameters. As regards seniority of the petitioners, it would be for the Managers to prepare a Draft Seniority List giving due seniority to the petitioners and to forward to the 3rd respondent for approval. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the seniority so assigned by the Manager, the petitioners will
