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) 12592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
SAHLA.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6599 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, SRI.GEORGE RENOY, SRI.ARJUN REMANAN
For the Respondents: SMT.V.A. HARITHA

The court mandates a timely review of a statutory Revision Petition ensuring natural justice principles are followed.

Headnote:The petitioner, appointed as LPST on 01.08.2023, faced rejection of approval due to pending senior teacher approvals. Government intervention led to an order adjusting positions, contravening natural justice principles. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition seeking a hearing and decision. The court deemed it proper for the 1st respondent to ascertain the petition within three months, ensuring adequate hearing. The court's direction emphasized the need for a timely and fair review process.

Table of Content
1. violation of natural justice in appointment process. (Para 1 , 2)
2. timely action on statutory revision petition. (Para 3)
3. court's directive for fair hearing and decision. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026 The petitioner was appointed as LPST against a retirement vacancy on 01.08.2023. The Educational Officer rejected the approval on the ground that the approval of two senior Teachers was pending.

2. Subsequently, in a Revision Petition filed by the Manager, the Government interfered and directed that the appointments of the senior Teachers be approved by adjusting the post presently held by the petitioner. By Ext.P3, the post in which the petitioner is working has been taken away to accommodate respondents 5 and 6. However, the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 were not heard before passing the order by the 1st respondent. This is in violation of the principles of natural justice, contends the petitioner.

3. On 27.01.2026, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 Revision Petition to review and reconsider the issue after hearing the petitioner and other affected parties including respondents 4, 5 and 6 and pass fresh orders by the 1st respondent. Inordinate delay in consideration of the Revision Petition would result in undue hardship, contends the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to respondents 4 to 6 is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

5. Aggrieved by the non-approval of the petitioner’s appointment, she has preferred Ext.P4 Revision Petition before the 1st respondent invoking the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959.

6. As Ext.P4 is a statutory Revision Petition, it would be only just and proper that the 1st respondent considers the same and takes appropriate decision thereon within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6.

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