Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
ABHILASH P. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointments as hsst must reflect work requirements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observed prior judgments demand anterior date approvals. (Para 4) |
| 3. final orders mandate a three-month reconsideration period. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2026 [W.P.(C) Nos.27114, 28754, 29729, 32384 and 34838 of 2025] In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are working as HSST (Junior) / HSST. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were granted appointments as HSST (Junior) / HSST, approval to their appointment was granted only with effect from prospective dates.
2. The petitioners would urge that the Division Bench of this Court has held that as soon as the workload of a School exceeds 15 hours / period, a post of HSST has to be created automatically for which no approval or sanction is required.
3. The petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed when the workload necessitated posts. However, approval has been granted to their appointment only prospectively. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
5. The issue invo
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
