Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8519
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
KUNHAMINA K.S – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 9938/2025
V.A.MUHAMMED, M.SAJJAD, V. VENUGOPAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The court affirmed that the petitioners' appointments were valid and entitled to full approval and monetary benefits, directing timely consideration of their statutory Revision Petition.
Headnote:(A) Education Act - Relevant Government Orders - The petitioners, appointed in Seethi Sahib Higher Secondary School, challenged the approval of their appointments, which was granted only on a notional basis until 05.02.2021, linking it to G.O.(P).No.4/2021/G.Edn. They contended that their appointments were not against additional vacancies and should be approved from 06.06.2019 with monetary benefits. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Statutory Revision - The court directed the 1st respondent to consider the statutory Revision Petition filed by the petitioners and take appropriate action within four months, ensuring compliance with the law. (Paras 7-10)
(C) Approval and Salary Disbursement - The court addressed grievances regarding the deposit of salaries in the PF Account instead of direct disbursement to the petitioners. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed that their appointments were delayed and that the approval order limiting their appointment to a notional basis was unjustified.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the petitioners' right to have their appointments approved from the date of their initial appointment and directed the 1st respondent to consider their Revision Petition.
Issues: The primary issues involved the legality of the notional approval and salary disbursement process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioners' appointments were valid and should be considered without the constraints of the Government Order affecting additional vacancies.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to consider the Revision Petition.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025
Petitioners were appointed in the Seethi Sahib Higher Secondary School, Taliparamba with effect from 06.06.2019 onwards. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are appointed against promotion / retirement vacancies, whereas, the 2nd petitioner is initially appointed against a newly created post and later, shifted against a retirement vacancy.
2. The petitioners state that they have two grievances over the order of their approval. One of the grievances is that while granting approval to their appointments, the Educational Officer granted approval upto 05.02.2021 only on notional basis, linking it with G.O.(P).No.4/2021/G.Edn dated 06.02.2021. The second grievance on the approval order is that it ordered to deposit the salary in the PF Account instead of releasing it to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners submitted that the Government, as per order dated 06.02.2021, considers the approval of appointment of those Teachers, who were appointed against additional vacancies effected in violation of 1:1 ratio, which ought to have been filled up by protected hands. Legally, the above said appointments were not in violation of 1:1 ratio against additional vacancies.
4. Ext.P10 would not affect the appointments covered by Exts.P1, P4 and P5 as those appointments were not made against additional vacancies, contend the petitioners. In the light of Exts.P12 and P13, the reservation in Exts.P6, P9 and P10 to the extent it granted approval to Exts.P1, P4 and P5 appointments on notional basis up to 05.02.2021, is legally tenable. The said appointments are liable to be approved from 06.06.2019 with monetary benefits.
5. The petitioners submitted that since the Manager who appointed the petitioners has got approval as a caretaker manager, initially the approval to the petitioners was delayed and only at the interference of the Government that the petitioners got approval. The approval granted to the petitioners as per Exts.P6 to P10 are not with respect to any broken spell of their earlier service.
6. The petitioners submitted that Exts.P14 to P16 is regarding the approval granted to the Teachers with respect to their earlier unapproved broken service. In the instant case, the approval granted to the petitioners are their current appointment. Due to the administrative reason alone, Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P5 appointments were not approved. Further, approval is granted not based on any concession of the Government. In such circumstances Exts.P12, P13 and P14 are not applicable in the case of the petitioners. There is no justification in depositing their salary in the PF Account, contends the petitioners.
7. In the above circumstances, being aggrieved by Exts.P6 to P10 to the extent it limits the approval on notional basis till 06.02.2021 and ordered to deposit the arrears of salary in the PF Account, the petitioners moved a Revision petition before the Government.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.
9. The petitioners would submit that as per Government Order dated 06.02.2021, the Government had directed to consider the approval of appointment of those Teachers, who were appointed against additional vacancies effected in violation of 1:1 ratio, which ought to have been filled up by protected hands. According to the petitioners, the said Government Order dated 06.02.2021 would not affect the appointments covered by Exts.P1, P4 and P5 as those appointments are not against additional vacancies.
10. Going through the pleadings, I find that the petitioners have preferred Ext.P17 Revision Petition before the 1st respondent raising their grievances. As Ext.P17 is a statutory Revision Petition, the 1st respondent can consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within a reasonable time.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P17 Revision Petition and take appropri
