Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
SHINY THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointment qualifications and claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's statement on legitimacy of decision-making authority. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. status quo maintenance during pending decision. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is working as HSST in the services of the 4th respondent School with effect from 04.09.2000. She is the seniormost Teacher and is fully qualified for appointment as Principal. A vacancy of Principal arose on 01.06.2025 and the petitioner was appointed as the Principal by the Manager as per Ext.P6.
2. The petitioner states that in the meantime, the
5th respondent, who is not qualified, raised a claim against the appointment of the petitioner and writ petitions were filed before this Court suppressing material fact and using forged documents. The 3rd respondent rejected the approval as per Ext.P10, against which a revision is preferred and a hearing was conducted. No orders are issued yet. This being so, on 25.01.2026, the 5th respondent using her influence and power, made the General Body of the Educational Agency to take a decision to direct the petitioner to go on leave and to appoint her as the Principal. The Gener
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
