Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
AISHA RAJAN.D – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointment approvals are based on existing vacancies. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. government orders must consider past entitlements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court directed consideration of representation within a specific timeframe. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2025 The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPSA at the 4th respondent’s School on 01.06.2016 in an additional division vacancy. The Corporate Management has five Schools. Approval of appointment of Teachers are based on seniority. After conducting an Adalat and after hearing affected Teachers and controlling officers, a comprehensive Government Order was issued, which is Ext.P2.
2. The petitioner states that in Ext.P2, it was ordered to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2016 onwards. However, later the 3rd respondent took a stand that there was no established vacancy as on the date of the appointment of the petitioner. The vacancy in question has to be given to the 5th respondent.
3. The petitioner was promoted as HSST (Junior)
by-transfer on 15.07.2021. The said by-transfer appointment was also not approved for the reason that the petitioner’s appointment as U
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
