IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Sheeja.C - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 32678 Of 2023 and WP(C) NO. 3934 OF 2025
Decided On : 13-05-2025
(A) Education Act - Staff Fixation Orders - Appointment of Teachers - The petitioner, appointed as HSST Junior (Malayalam), contended for approval of her appointment based on the number of periods sanctioned. The Government denied the approval citing the absence of a sanctioned post and the need for a selection process. (Paras 2-11)
(B) Appointment Process - The court emphasized that appointments must follow the Government's directive for creation of posts only after three academic years and through a Selection Committee. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as HSST Junior on a daily wage basis but was denied approval for a permanent post despite the school having sufficient periods for the subject. The 4th respondent challenged the Government's decision regarding the post's sanction.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitions as the Government's decision to create posts only after three years was valid.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of the petitioner to a permanent post and the validity of the Government's decision on staff fixation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner could not claim a permanent appointment as the Government's policy required a selection process and a waiting period for new posts.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
These two writ petitions are based on common facts and raise common questions of law. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Parties and exhibits in the writ petitions are referred to in this judgment as they are described/marked in W.P.(C) No.32678/2023, for convenience.
2. In W.P.(C) No.32678/2023, the petitioner contends that she is working as HSST Junior (Malayalam) in the School managed by the 4th respondent. Additional batches were sanctioned in the School in the year 2014. The total number of periods in Malayalam increased to 36 per week from the year 2015-2016 onwards. For 36 periods of Malayalam, one HSST (Malayalam) and one HSST Junior (Malayalam) posts are permissible. However, there was only one HSST (Malayalam) Teacher working then.
3. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed as HSST Junior in Malayalam as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.06.2017. The petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as HSST / HSST Junior in Malayalam. The petitioner's appointment has not been approved and she has not been paid salary and allowances.
4. As per Government Orders, no HSST / HSST Junior post in Malayalam was sanctioned to the petitioner's School. A Guest Teacher post alone was sanctioned. When 36 periods are available per week for the subject Malayalam, the School was entitled to a regular post of HSST Junior. Aggrieved by denial of approval, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.41116/2018. The writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter of approval of the petitioner. The 1st respondent thereupon passed Ext.P8 order declining the request of the petitioner. In Ext.P8, availability of 36 periods is admitted. The staff fixation of the School for the year 2020-2021 to 2023-2024 is not completed. The petitioner states that the Government has issued Ext.P10 order stating that the Teacher was appointed without any selection process. The Government, however, did not correct the mistake by sanctioning one regular post of HSST Junior.
5. W.P.(C) No.3934/2025 has been filed by the 4th respondent-Manager challenging Ext.P9 order of the Government and seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to sanction an HSST Junior post in Malayalam from 21.08.2017. The 4th respondent stated that during 2014- 2015, additional batches were sanctioned, however, the Junior HSST post in Malayalam was omitted to be sanctioned. The petitioner was continuing on daily wages.
6. The 4th respondent submitted that the Government omitted to consider the admitted fact that there were 36 periods for Malayalam. After allotting 25 periods to HSST, 11 periods have to be handled by a HSST Junior. Respondents 1 to 3 therefore ought to have sanctioned a post of HSST Junior with effect from 21.08.2017.
7. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that as per the Staff Fixation Order dated 07.12.2017, one HSST Junior Guest Teacher Malayalam post alone is sanctioned and the Government has not created HSST Junior Malayalam post. The petitioner was appointed by the 4th respondent-Manager unilaterally first and then sought for creation of the post. The demand has been declined by the Principal Secretary to the General Education Department. The writ petition is therefore liable to be rejected.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
9. The petitioner was appointed as HSST Junior as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.06.2017 of the Manager. The appointment was on a daily wage basis. The argument of the petitioner is that since there are 35 periods of Malayalam per week in the School, the School is entitled to have one HSST and one HSST Junior. The petitioner's appointment with effect from 29.06.2017 is therefore liable to be approved sanctioning a post of HSST Junior.
10. Ext.P2 is the appointment order given to the petitione
The court upheld the Government's policy requiring a selection process and a three-year waiting period for creating permanent teaching posts, denying the petitioner's claim for approval of her daily ....
The appointment of a teacher to an unsanctioned post is void; creation of posts follows governmental policy decisions based on financial constraints and student enrollment as mandated by statutory re....
The appointment of the petitioner as HSST Junior (Malayalam) was justified based on the Staff Fixation Orders, and the rejection of her appointment violated principles of natural justice.
Judicial review on administrative decisions affecting teacher appointments ensures fairness and adherence to established precedents.
Appointments of HSST must be approved from anterior dates when workload exceeds specified hours.
Eligibility for promotion requires possession of requisite qualifications at the time of vacancy; daily wage employees cannot claim promotion without regularization.
Financial constraints cannot justify the denial of sanctioned posts in educational institutions as per statutory requirements.
Unqualified appointments in government schools are invalid unless proper qualifications are met, ensuring adherence to statutory rules.
Increased workload justifies upgradation of teaching posts in educational institutions as per established legal precedents.
The Court determines that teachers are entitled to approval of their appointments based on workload exceeding the statutory threshold, granting similar relief as in previous cases.
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.