Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D. K. SINGH, J
T. V. RAJAGOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION – Respondent
WP(C) 20404/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN, SMT.ANJU GIREESH, SMT.DHRISYA DINESH
For the Respondents: V. VENUGOPAL
The court reaffirmed the lack of standing for a manager to alter an educational appointment post-approval based on a delayed disability claim.
Headnote:The petitioner's request to treat the appointment of the 4th respondent against a vacancy for disabled persons was dismissed, as the 4th respondent did not claim disability at the time of her appointment. The court emphasized that the petitioner had no right to request such a change post-appointment (paragraphs 1-2). The main legal questions revolved around the authority of the manager in this matter and whether the 4th respondent's appointment should be reclassified due to a late disability claim. The court clarified that the petitioner's motives were questionable and insufficient to warrant this appeal (paragraphs 1-2). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and cost was imposed on the petitioner to be paid within fifteen days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's standing questioned regarding disability claims post-appointment. (Para 1) |
| 2. writ petition dismissed due to claims lacking legitimate basis. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner claims to be the Manager of Pattuvam AUP School, Thaliparamba, Kannur district. The 4th respondent was appointed as Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) in the said School against the vacancy which arises due to the retirement of Smt. Jayasree M. on 31.05.2020. The appointment of the 4th respondent was approved on 11.08.2021 by the 3rd respondent as per the provisions of Kerala Education Rules, 1959. After three years of the appointment of the 4th respondent as UPST against the general category vacancy, she has produced a disability certificate issued by the Medical Authority, Kannur dated 10.03.2023.
2. Now, the Manager brilliantly has filed this writ petition for treating the appointment of the 4th respondent against the vacancy meant for disabled persons. The 4th respondent never claimed to be ‘disabled’ when the appointment came through and was approved. This Court fails to understand that how the Manager has got right to file this writ petition before this Court for treating the appointment of the 4th respondent against the vacancy meant for disabled candidate. This writ petition has been filed by the Manager with ulterior motives and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Kerala Legal Services Authority within a period of fifteen days. If the petitioner fails to make payment of the cost as directed above, the District Collector, Kannur shall make the recovery as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner.
