SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
MUHAMMAD P.T – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3335 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.M.SAJJAD
For the Respondents: SMT.V.A. HARITHA

Reservation regulations must be adhered to while making employment decisions involving differently-abled individuals, ensuring due consideration within prescribed timelines.

Headnote:The petitioner contends against the denial of approval for his appointment as Full Time Menial based on non-adherence to reservation for Persons with Disabilities. The court directs the 1st respondent to consider the Revision Petition under Rule 92 of Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The judgment aims at ensuring the petitioner's continued employment pending a government review. The final order enforces a timeline of three months for the respondent's decision-making process.

Table of Content
1. appointment approval based on reservation laws. (Para 1 , 2)
2. anticipated vacancy for fulfilling reservation needs. (Para 3)
3. court directive to consider revision petition. (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026 Petitioner was appointed as Full Time Menial in the School from 01.07.2019 onwards against a promotion vacancy. The vacancy arose consequent to the promotion of the incumbent Full Time Menial as Clerk on the same date. Approval to the said appointment was declined by the Educational Authorities, on the ground of non-adherence to reservation for differently-abled persons.

2. Aggrieved by that rejection the petitioner has preferred a Revision Petition before the Government, which is still pending consideration. The petitioner contends that though 4% reservation for Persons with Disabilities came into force with effect from 18.11.2018, the Government has issued specific orders permitting the said reservation to be satisfied against future vacancies. In view of the said Government Orders, the petitioner is not liable to be displaced from the post to accommodate a differently-abled candidate.

3. Moreover, an ensuing vacancy in the Cadre of Full Time Menial is expected to arise in the School on 31.05.2027, which can be utilised to satisfy the reservation requirement. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions to permit him to continue in service without displacement and for consequential reliefs, pending final orders on the Revision Petition before the Government.

4. Heard.

5. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P2(a) declining approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 Revision Petition before the 1st respondent.

6. As Ext.P3 Revision Petition has been preferred invoking Rule 92, Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules , 1959, it would be only just and proper that the

1st respondent considers Ext.P3 and passes appropriate orders thereon on merits, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top