Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
AMRUTHA K.N – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 46060 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, SMT.MARY CATHERINE, PRIYANKA P.S, SHRI.ALEX TOM JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SRI. V. VENUGOPAL
The Court mandates timely revision of appointment approvals while ensuring due process in educational appointments.
Headnote:In the case concerning the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Social Science), pertinent to the Kerala Education laws, it was determined that the petitioner's appointment from 15.07.2021 to 14.07.2022 was valid and must be reviewed. The Court found that timely consideration of this revision petition was essential, hence mandating the 1st respondent to decide within three months. The main issue was regarding the delay in processing the appointment in relation to existing seniority lists. The Court emphasized the importance of hearing the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details surrounding the petitioner's appointment and related administrative issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. the necessity for timely consideration of the revision petition by the 1st respondent. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's directive for prompt action on the revision petition. (Para 7) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2025 The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPSA at Desabandhu Higher Secondary School, Thachampara, on 30.07.2008. The appointment of the petitioner as UPSA was approved by the Department. While so, a vacancy of HSA arose consequent to the death of Sri. K.A. Rajesh, who died on 21.03.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner was offered appointment as HSA (Social Science)
with effect from 15.07.20201.
2. The District Educational Officer as per Ext.P1 order dated 25.09.2023 rejected the approval of appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Social Science). The matter was taken up before the First Appellate Authority, who in turn issued Ext.P3 order whereby the appeal was turned down on the sole reason that there is a delay in making the appeal. In the meantime, there was a fresh vacancy of HSA (Social Science) consequent to the retirement of Smt. U. Vijayalakshmi on 31.05.2025. 3. The Manager has forwarded the fresh proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2025. The District Educational Officer kept the matter pending stating that a combined seniority list of Teachers is necessary. The petitioner has already submitted the existing seniority list of Teachers working in the Desabandhu Higher Secondary School, Thachampara.
4. At the same time, the Department took a stand that the Manager is having yet another School, viz., Aided U.P. School, Adakkaputhur. Therefore, according to the Department, a combined seniority list of both the Schools is necessary to effect promotion. The Manager challenged the action of the Department by filing a revision before the Government. The case is pending as File No.B3/150/25/J section before the Government.
5. The petitioner, thereupon filed a comprehensive revision evidenced by Ext.P9, seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Social Science) with effect from 15.07.2021 to 14.07.2022 and thereafter approve the appointment of the petitioner from 02.06.2025 onwards. Hence, seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Social Science), the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.
7. The petitioner would submit that she is entitled to get approval for her appointment as HSA (Social Science) with effect from 15.07.2021 to 14.07.2022. As the petitioner has already preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent, it would be only appropriate that the 1st respondent considers the issue and takes a decision on the statutory revision petition.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 revision petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
