Financial constraints cannot justify the denial of sanctioned posts in educational institutions as per statutory requirements.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the Manager of PHMKMV and HSS, Panavoor, an Aided School, in terms of the Kerala Education Act and Rules situated in Attingal Educational District.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by non- sanctioning of the post of HSST Junior (Hindi) in the School by the respondents, though 12 periods are available for Hindi and one Guest Lecturer is permitted and paid for the last six years. Non-sanctioning of the post is apparently for the reason of financial crunch. It has been held by this Court that financial exigencies cannot be a reigning concern in interpreting statutory rules and notification. It is also held by this Court that salary cannot be denied to HSSTs on the ground of financial crunch, contends the petitioner.

3. It has been held by this Court in W.P.(C) No.41279/2017 and connected case that an HSST (Junior) post shall be sanctioned when the workload per week exceeds six periods. A writ appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed. Hence, the post of HSST (Hindi) Junior sought for by the petitioner shall be granted by the respondents, Statutewise and Judgmentwise.

4. The petitioner's School was upgraded as HSS as per Government Order dated 24.11.2024. The Higher Secondary wing of the School was granted with one Science Batch and one Commerce Batch. Posts were created in Science Batch as per Government Order dated 21.08.2017 and the Commerce batch as per Government Order dated 06.02.2019. As per Exts.P5 and P6, only one Malayalam HSST post (language) is sanctioned.

5. The HSST Junior post of Hindi is not sanctioned by the respondents though there are more than 12 periods per week as per the timetable in the Higher Secondary. Guest Lecturer is permitted and paid for Hindi for the workload of Hindi in Higher Secondary sanctioned post. Facts being so, the petitioner moved the respondents to sanction one post of HSST(Jr) Hindi in the School.

6. The Government have called for remarks from respondents 2 and 3 over Exts.P28 and P29. It would also appear that they have reported it positively to the Government explaining the fact situation of work load of Hindi in Higher Secondary as also the number and details of the students who had been learning Hindi Language in Higher Secondary. But, the request for sanctioning a HSST Junior post for Hindi was declined by the Government as a letter in a single sentence on the ground of financial crunch.

7. The petitioner submitted that Ext.P31 is highly arbitrary and grossly illegal. It was issued in violation of the Principles of natural justice as well. Government are not justified in issuing a letter over Exts.P28 and P29. Going by the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala, they are expected to issue order in the name of the Governor of Kerala. Hence, Ext.P31 is hit by the Bench Decision of this Court reported in Sudheer T. v. M.V.Susheela and others [ 2009 (4) KLT 29 ]. Ext.P32 is also hit by the decision of this Court covered by Exts.P1 to P3.

8. The Government have discriminated the petitioner with other similarly situated Aided School Managements in the matter of grant of HSST post for language. As per Ext.P33, one HSST (Malayalam) and HSST (Hindi) post each are created in Chappanangadi Higher Secondary School and Nanniyode Higher Secondary School. Ext.P31 is contrary to Exts.P32 and P33. Thus, there is conscious maltreatment and discrimination. It is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, contends the petitioner.

9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

10. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the

1^st respondent to