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) 6979

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
JEEWORTH JOS T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 45952 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P., SRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI, SRI.RAKESH S MENON
For the Respondents: SRI.V. VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The court emphasized the need for timely decisions on personnel appointments by administrative authorities, ensuring procedural fairness in employment matters.

Headnote:In the case concerning WP

(C) NO. 45952 OF 2025, the petitioner challenged the orders Exts.P5 and P6, seeking appointment approval. The court ruled that the 2nd respondent must consider the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P9) within a stipulated timeframe. It emphasized the need for timely resolution and due process in administrative decisions. The ruling underscores the court’s role in ensuring adherence to procedural fairness in governmental employment matters. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner challenged the lack of appointment approval and sought a resolution. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court instructed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal expeditiously. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, who was initially appointed as Full Time Menial in St.George’s High School in the year 2019, has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P6 and to command the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Office Attendant treating it as an established and substantive vacancy, pending approval of the 5th respondent’s promotion and appointment in the Cadre of Clerk, within a time frame.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.

3. From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has now preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the 2nd respondent highlighting his grievance. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent can consider Ext.P9 appeal and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two 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