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) 7041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
ABHILASH P. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27114 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 28754 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 29729 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 32384 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 34838 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.MAAROOF, SMT.NAFIYA SHAHALA C.K.
For the Respondents: SRI.PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Appointments of HSST must be approved from anterior dates when workload exceeds specified hours.

Headnote:In the present decision involving writ petitions concerning appointments as HSST (Junior) and HSST, the Court analyzed previous judgments including W.P.

(C) No.13664 of 2018, which determined that appointments should be approved with effect from anterior dates rather than prospective dates. The Court directed the reconsideration of the impugned orders in light of earlier judgments. The final outcome mandated the re-evaluation of the claims within three months.

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 involved in these writ petitions was considered by this Court in a number of writ petitions. I have gone through the judgment in W.P.(C) No.13664 of 2018 and connected cases. The learned Judge, in the batch of writ petitions, has exhaustively considered various Government Orders and has come to a conclusion that the appointment will have to be approved with effect from anterior dates and those appointments cannot be made prospective alone. The Government preferred SLP against the said order and the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP No.18120 of 2019 . In view of the above, the respondents are liable to review the impugned orders.

In the facts of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the impugned orders and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for anterior dates of appointment as HSST (Junior) and HSST respectively and their claim for consequential benefits, adverting to the judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.13664 of 2018 and 21365 of 2025 and SLP No.18120 of 2019 . Orders shall be passed within a period of three months.

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