Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
SUDHEER K.P., NISHAD P.K., JAZID P.A., SIDARA R.D., MUHAMMAD SAFVAN P, MUHAMMED JALEEL P.C., SARITHA K., PRATHYUSHA P.R., RAFI M.A., SIJU G.R., VASUDHA P.P., SAJITH BABU T.K., RATNAVALLI VATTAKKANDIYIL, P.BHARATHY, SHEEJA K. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 882 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SHRI.HARISH R. MENON, SMT.K.N.ABHA, SRI.A.G.PRASANTH, SMT.VARSHA SAHAJAN, SMT.MARY HEDWIG BABY, SMT.ALEENA SEBASTIAN, SMT.FATHIMA HASHIM
For the Respondents: SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

Promotion approvals for teachers should account for date of eligibility without requiring prior sanction in cases of sufficient workload.

Headnote:The petitioners, who are Higher Secondary School Teachers, challenge the non-approval of their promotions as HSST from the date of their eligibility. The Court emphasizes that prior sanction for such upgradation is not required if there is sufficient workload. The petitioners are directed to make representations in light of prior judgments, and approvals must be issued within four months.

Table of Content
1. non-approval of teachers' promotions based on eligibility. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs representation for promotion approval. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2026 The petitioners are Teachers working as HSST now.

They were working as HSST (Junior) and they were promoted to the post of HSST later. The grievance of the petitioners is that approval is not granted to their appointment as HSST with effect from the date of their initial appointments, the date of eligibility.

2. This Court in various judgments has found that a prior sanction for upgradation to the post of HSST is not required and if there is sufficient workload, the post of HSST (Junior) shall stand upgraded as HSST automatically. The petitioners submit that inspite of the said findings of this Court and directions in Ext.P23 Division Bench judgment of this Court, the appointment of the petitioners are not approved with effect from the exact dates of their eligibility.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the non-approval of their service as HSST with effect from the date of eligibility. Ext.P23 Division Bench judgment is in favour of the petitioners. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioners to make a representation before the 2^nd respondent in the light of Ext.P23 Division Bench judgment. If the petitioners make such a representation within a period of two weeks, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same taking note of Ext.P23 judgment and pass appropriate orders in the matter of approval from anterior dates. Orders shall be passed within a period of four months.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document