Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
SHELNA. K.A. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility of 6th respondent to retain upst position. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. reference to the supreme court ruling informing the decision. (Para 3) |
| 3. final ruling directing appointment of the petitioner. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is essentially as to whether the 6th respondent could continue as UPST after promotion without clearing the K-TET.
2. Heard Sri. P.J. Elvin Peter, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. V.A. Muhammed, learned counsel for the 6th respondent herein.
3. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. P.J. Elvin Peter, points out that the issue stands decided against the 6th respondent by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra [2025 KHC Online 6761]
4. On a consideration of the averments in the writ petition as well as the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the opinion that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition stands allowed.
There will be a direction to the 5th respondent Manager to appoint the petitioner as HSA in the place of the
6th respondent herein with effect from 1.6.2023.
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
