Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
BINDHU.P, SHIBINA.K.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2790 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS, SMT.E.U.DHANYA, SMT.N.S.SHAMILA, SMT.CHINJU P. JOYIES, SHRI.VINAYAK MANOHARAN P.
For the Respondents: SRI. V. VENUGOPAL
The court affirmed the obligation to approve teacher appointments from their initial dates based on precedents.
Headnote:The petitioners contested that their appointments as HSST should be approved from their initial dates of appointment based on precedents established in Ext.P5 judgment. The court recognized that similar past judgments confirmed the standing of the petitioners' claims and directed that their pending representation is to be addressed. The court mandated that orders be made within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' appointments demand approval. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court hears petitions regarding statutory obligations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. orders required based on previous judgments. (Para 6) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026 The petitioners state that the 1st petitioner was appointed as HSST (Junior), Commerce on 27.06.2011. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as HSST (Junior), English on 23.07.2012 and was thereafter promoted as HSST on 15.07.2013. As per Ext.P1, appointments were approved only with effect from 18.03.2013, on the ground that the posts pertaining to the courses sanctioned in the year 2010 were sanctioned only on 23.02.2013.
2. The appointments of the petitioners from their actual dates of appointment up to 28.02.2013 were approved only on daily wages basis. The issue relating to approval of appointment of others with effect from the actual date of appointment, was considered and allowed as per Ext.P5 judgment, by directing approval from the date of appointment. The writ appeal and the Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment were dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the Regional Deputy Directors have issued Exts.P7 and P8 orders approving appointments made in the years 2011 and 2012 with effect from the dates of appointment. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to identical relief, contend the petitioners.
3. The petitioners further submits that in a similar matter, Government has also issued orders directing approval of appointments made in the batches approved during 2011-2012. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P10 representation before the 1st respondent seeking approval of their appointments from the actual dates of appointment. The writ petition is filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, or in the alternative, to direct the respondents to approve the appointments of the petitioners on regular scale of pay with effect from 27.06.2011 and
23.07.2012 respectively.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.
5. The contention of the petitioners is that since there was sufficient workload when the petitioners were appointed initially, their appointments are liable to be approved from the initial date of appointment. The Government is therefore under a statutory obligation to redress the grievance of the petitioners.
6. I find that the issue relating to approval of appointments with effect from the date of appointment was considered by this Court and found favour of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16613 of 2014 and connected cases as per Ext.P5 judgment. Ext.P5 judgment was subjected to challenge in the W.A.No.908 of 2016 and was later carried before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.23337 of 2019. The writ appeals were dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to relief as has been granted in Ext.P5 judgment.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P10 representation submitted by the petitioners, taking note of Ext.P5 judgment as confirmed in the writ appeal and SLP.
Orders shall be passed within a period of three months.
Sd/-
