Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
RETHIKA PANAKKARATHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32404 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MURALI PALLATH, SRI.P.S.SAJEESH
For the Respondents: SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI, SRI. PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The appointment cancellation based on non-compliance with protected teacher regulations was unlawful, necessitating salary resumption.
Headnote:The case pertains to the legality of withholding the salary of an appointed Upper Primary School Teacher. The petitioner argued against the cancellation of her appointment due to grave administrative improprieties. The court acknowledged the violation of rules; the rationale towards withholding was invalid. The court framed the issue as whether the direction for her cancellation was lawful under prevailing educational rules. The court’s reasoning emphasized the necessity of adherence to regulations, thus the earlier decision was found unjustified. The writ petition is allowed, and earlier orders are quashed mandating continued salary payment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the legality of the petitioner's appointment and salary withholding is contested. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the illegality of actions taken by authorities regarding appointment cancellation. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court observations on the application of rules concerning protected teachers. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling to reinstate the salary and nullify previous orders. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Exts.P2 and P12 and to declare that the petitioner is legally entitled to monthly salary.
2. The petitioner states that the 7th respondent-
Manager appointed the petitioner as UPST in Karivellur North AUP School from 15.07.2021 onwards. The appointment was against a promotion vacancy as the incumbent was promoted as Headmistress with effect from 01.06.2021. The 5th respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner as UPST from 15.07.2021, as per Ext.P2.
3. The petitioner states that subsequently, the 5th respondent as per Ext.P3 objected the approval granted to the petitioner and directed the 6th respondent to withhold monthly salary payable to the petitioner. The 5th respondent requested the 2nd respondent to cancel the approval granted to the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was one to be set apart for appointment of Protected Teachers.
4. The petitioner submits that the reason advanced for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner and withholding of salary, is highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner points out that there was a Protected Teacher working in the School from the year 2008 to 2015. The said Protected Teacher got transfer back to his / her parent School. It is the said vacancy which has to be kept apart for the Protected Teacher.
5. The petitioner was appointed against a promotion vacancy which is distinct from the vacancy in which the Protected Teacher worked earlier. Therefore, the direction to cancel the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, contends the petitioner.
6. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Manager of Karivellur North AUP School suppressing the fact that the said post is reserved for Protected Teacher. The existing Rule does not permit to continue the petitioner in this post. As per the judgment dated 07.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.2949 of 2025, the Government has issued an order dated 20.08.2025. On the basis of this order, Director of General Education issued an Order No.DGE/3079/2025-G2/DGE dated 15.09.2025.
7. From the above orders, it is clear that the petitioner is working in the vacancy set apart for Protected Teacher and hence her permanent appointment should be terminated. Hence, the salary should be repaid after deducting the daily wage.
8. The petitioner was appointed against the vacancy of giving promotion to Smt. Preetha P. as Headmistress, the post was set apart for accommodating protected Teacher. As per G.O.(P) No.03/2019/GEDN dated 28.02.2019, in an upgraded section, one among the existing or arising regular vacancies of Teachers or non-teaching staff shall also be filled up by the Manager by appointing a protected hand from the Teachers’ Bank with the permission of the Deputy Director of Education. As the petitioner's School is upgraded School, one post must be set apart for Protected Teacher. In this School, no post was set apart for Protected Teacher. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.
10. The approval earlier granted to the petitioner’s appointment as UPST is directed to be cancelled by the
