Unqualified appointments in government schools are invalid unless proper qualifications are met, ensuring adherence to statutory rules.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2026 The petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Hindi) in Kadathanadu Rajas HS School from 08.09.2021 onwards and she is the next person to be promoted / appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher in the vacancy arose during the Academic Year 2025-2026 in accordance with the Kerala Education Rules , 1959.

2. In the Academic Year 2025-2026, two retirement vacancies of HSST (Hindi) and HSST (Mathematics) arose in the School. The first vacancy arose on 31.03.2025 due to the retirement of the Principal of the School as HSST (Hindi) and the second vacancy arose on

31.05.2025 as HSST (Mathematics).

3. The petitioner stakes a claim for HSST (Hindi) as she is fully qualified for the post. But, the Manager appointed the 5^th respondent, who is unqualified, to the post of HSST (Mathematics). However, the said appointment was not approved till date on the ground that she is not having prescribed qualification.

4. According to the petitioner, if any appointment is made in the absence of the prescribed qualification, such appointment cannot be considered as a valid appointment. Though the petitioner made several requests to the 4^th respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of HSST (Hindi) to follow the ratio 1:3, the said request was not heeded. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent filing Ext.P6 representation, which is pending.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in the writ petition.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent is unqualified for appointment to the post of HSST (Mathematics) and nevertheless, the 5^th respondent has been granted appointment.

7. It is submitted that the question of approval to be granted to the 5^th respondent is pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 3^rd respondent.

8. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 3^rd respondent considers Ext.P6 while considering the question of approval to the appointment of the

5^th respondent.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months and at any rate before finalising the issue of approval of appointment granted to the

5^th respondent, if the appointment is not already approved. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 shall be granted opportunity of hearing while taking a decision.

Sd/-