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) 7746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
RAJI.K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3787 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.SHAJI, SRI.MOHANAN C.
For the Respondents: SMT. V.A. HARITHA

The court directed the relevant authorities to consider the petitioners' request for regularization of service within a stipulated timeframe.

Headnote:The case pertains to the petitioners, who are working as Teacher and Aya in the Thanal Buds Rehabilitation Centre, claiming regularization based on ten years of continuous service and representations made under a government order. The Court, upon reviewing facts and representation process, mandates consideration of their requests by the authorities. The petitioner's continuous service raises significant grounds for consideration in law. The Court concludes by directing the first respondent to deliberate on the representations within three months while adhering to legal protocols.

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 heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.

5. The petitioners are working as Teacher and Aya respectively in “Thanal Buds Rehabilitation Centre” since 25.06.2015. The petitioners state that they were selected through a selection process and they were appointed as per Ext.P2. Since the petitioners are having more than ten years of continuous service, they have submitted Exts.P13 and P14 representations for regularisation in service in the light of Ext.P12. In the afore facts of the case, I am of the view that the 1st respondent can consider their representations for regularisation.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P13 and P14 representations submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of three months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, taking note of Ext.P12.

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