Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
RAJI.K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. continuous service and regularization claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented for consideration. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's directives for authority review. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026 The petitioners state that they are working as Teacher and Aya respectively in the “Thanal Buds Rehabilitation Centre” functioning under the 4th respondent since 25.06.2015 on contract basis.
2. The petitioners were selected after conducting due selection process and interview. They were appointed as per Ext.P2 decision of the 4th respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 guidelines issued by the 1st respondent.
3. Ext.P3 proceedings stipulated that the Teachers /
Ayas, who are having more than two years experience shall not be terminated. The petitioners are continuing in service from 25.06.2015 onwards and having more than ten years of continuous service, as can be seen from Exts.P9 and P10 Certificates issued by the 5th respondent. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P13 and P14 representations before the 1st respondent seeking regularization in service on the basis of their continuous service from 25.06.2015 by virtue of Ext.P12 Government Order.
4. I have
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
