Violated principles of natural justice in terminating the service of a differently abled teacher without a hearing.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2025 The petitioner, who is a differently abled Teacher appointed in the vacancy of HST (Physical Science) from 22.02.2024 in a vacancy specifically set apart for appointing differently abled candidate, is before this Court seeking to set aside Exts.P5 and P6 and to command respondents 4 to 6 to permit the petitioner to continue in service by putting signature in the Teacher’s Attendance Register with all consequential benefits including salary.

2. The petitioner, who is a physically disabled candidate with 43% disability, has been appointed as HST (Physical Science) with effect from 22.02.2024. The petitioner would submit that the appointment was done against a backlog vacancy, which was earmarked for PwD candidates.

3. The 7^th respondent was appointed as HST (Physical Science) on 15.07.2021. However, the 7^th respondent’s appointment was not approved as the 7^th respondent did not acquire K-TET qualification at the time of appointment. The 7^th respondent acquired K-TET qualification only on 05.12.2022, as can be seen from Ext.R7(b). Later, the 7^th respondent was appointed against a vacancy that arose from 01.06.2023 as per Ext.R7(c). The said appointment of the 7^th respondent was also not approved holding that the 7^th respondent had become age-barred by then.

4. The 7^th respondent then approached the Government and the Government issued Ext.P2 order granting relaxation of age to the 7^th respondent. Consequently, on 11.07.2025, the 2^nd respondent directed to give approval to the appointment of the 7^th respondent. Thereupon, the District Educational Officer passed Ext.P5 order dated 19.08.2025 approving the appointment of the 7^th respondent and directing termination of service of the petitioner, who was appointed as HST at a later stage. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P6 orders on various grounds.

5. The petitioner would submit that the General Rules relating to the Teachers appointed will not apply to the petitioner, as the petitioner is a candidate having the protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 . The petitioner would rely on Section 20 of the and would contend that termination of service of the petitioner under the circumstances would amount to discrimination in employment prohibited under proviso to (4) of the the .

6. The petitioner would further contend that the original staff fixation was revised without any request from any quarters. In view of Section Rule 12C (3) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959, the petitioner ought to have been heard before a staff fixation was revised to the detriment of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner would further contend that the post earmarked for differently abled persons cannot be filled up otherwise relying on any provision of the KER . Furthermore, the petitioner ought to have been appointed much earlier from the date of arising of the vacancy and the delay in appointing the petitioner on a later date, cannot adversely affect the petitioner.

8. The petitioner would reiterate that vacancies earmarked for PwD candidates and specifically set apart for them, cannot be filled by candidates from open category or any other reserved category. The petitioner relied on a number of judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of his case.

9. The 5^th respondent-Manager resisted the writ petition. The 5^th respondent stated that in any Staff Fixation Order, if a vacancy is reduced, then the principle of ‘last come first go’ should be followed in view of Rule 55 of Chapter XIVA of the KER . The petitioner is admittedly a later entrant into the