Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12228
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
The State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – Appellant
Versus
Reena P.P., W/O. Jose George, Head Mistress, GLPS Chulikka, Meppadi P.O., Wayanad – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 147 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.A.J.Varghese, Sr.GP
For the Respondents:
Misinterpretation of a repatriation request led to clarification and allowance of subsequent promotion consideration.
Headnote:The case involves an Original Petition by the State of Kerala challenging a Tribunal's order regarding the repatriation of a teacher. The respondent, having held a lien on the post of High School Assistant, requested repatriation and subsequent promotion. The Court found that the request had been misinterpreted and clarified that repatriation should be allowed, followed by promotion consideration. The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the repatriation request was to be considered immediately, with subsequent promotion requests assessed based on seniority. The case was disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. misinterpretation of a repatriation request. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. clarification on the request for repatriation. (Para 3) |
| 3. final decision on the original petition. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J
This Original Petition is filed by the State challenging an order of the Tribunal. In our view, the entire issue arose due to a misinterpretation of the request made by the respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, for repatriation as a High School Assistant (HSA).
2. Admittedly, she was appointed as an HSA, and her appointment was confirmed after the declaration of probation. Therefore, she holds a lien on the post of HSA. While officiating as an HSA, she was appointed as Headmistress at Govt. L.P. School, Puthumala, Wayanad, on 27.10.2021. However, she was not confirmed in that post and is therefore entitled to repatriation as an HSA based on her lien. She made this request when the select list was prepared for HM/AEO of the High School section. This was considered as a request for promotion from the feeder category of PD Teacher to the post of Headmaster in the High School section. In reality, the petitioner’s request is for repatriation as an HSA and, thereafter, for consideration for promotion as Headmaster. If this had been correctly understood, the request for repatriation should have been allowed, and subsequently, she should have been considered for promotion as HM/AEO in the High School section.
3. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Annexure A6 must be set aside, as rightly done by the Tribunal. The request for repatriation to the post of HSA shall be considered immediately, and if granted, all subsequent requests for promotion based on seniority for appointment as HM of the High School Section or AEO shall also be considered.
4. Clarifying the impugned order as above, we dispose of the Original Petition. However, we make it clear that the vacancy, which was directed to be kept vacant by the Tribunal, shall remain on hold in accordance with the above directions. The entire process shall be completed within two months.
The Original Petition is disposed of.
