The court affirmed that the appointment of the teacher in question is by transfer under educational rules, validating the procedure and dismissing claims of incompetence based on probation status.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.18825 of 2024 and 23315 of 2024 filed the respective writ appeals under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 22.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. Since the point to be considered in both the writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties to these writ appeals are referred to as they are referred to in W.A.No.1882 of 2025 and in the common judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2. The point that arises for consideration in these writ appeals is whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appointment of the 7^th respondent as HSST (Junior) in English while he was working as HSA English in the same school is a by-transfer appointment?

3. The appellant in W.A.No.1882 of 2025 was appointed as HSA (English) in a newly created post by the 6^th respondent, Manager, with effect from 03.06.2013, by Ext.P1 order dated 03.06.2013. The 7^th respondent was appointed as HSA (English) initially on 13.07.2011. While the 7^th respondent was continuing in the said post without approval, a vacancy of HSST (Junior) in English had arisen in the Higher Secondary Section of the School due to the promotion of one Deepu K., HSST (Junior) in English, as HSST English, in the leave vacancy of one Jamsal P. In the said vacancy, the 7^th respondent was appointed as HSST (Junior) with effect from 22.10.2011. The appointment of the 7^th respondent as HSST (Junior) was approved for the period from 22.10.2011 to 30.03.2012 and from 04.06.2012 to 31.03.2016. The appellant was appointed as HSA (English) in the vacancy that arose consequent to the appointment of the 7^th respondent as HSST (Junior) in English with effect from 03.06.2013. However, later the appellant was shifted to the regular vacancy of HSA (English) against which one Rajasree was appointed, and the said Rajasree was shifted to the vacancy of the 7^th respondent, giving preference to the senior appointee.

3.1. In the meantime, an issue arose regarding the approval of one T.K. Vidhyasree as HSST (Junior) in Maths through by transfer method, along with the claim of Smt. Shini T.K, who was appointed through direct recruitment. The said issue was relating to 25% quota for by transfer appointment, and while considering the said question, the nature of appointment of the 7^th respondent as HSST (Junior), i.e., whether it was a direct appointment or by transfer appointment, was considered, and Ext.P5 order dated 28.05.2019 was passed by the Government. In Ext.P5 order, the Government found that the 7^th respondent was appointed as HSST (Junior), by way of direct recruitment. In the meantime, the 2^nd respondent, the Director of General Education, passed an order in favour of Smt. Rajasree, who is the appellant in W.A.No.1829 of 2025, finding that the appointment of the 7^th respondent has to be restricted till 21.10.2011 in the cadre of HSA (English) and declared that he is not entitled to claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the KER and also found that the appointment of the appellant is to be approved continuously from 03.06.2013. Ext.P6 was the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in this regard.

3.2. Exts.P5 and P6 orders were challenged by the 7^th respondent by filing W.P(C) No.28934 of 2022, and W.P(C)No.6178 of 2022 before this Court. Later, as per Ext.P7 common judgment dated 16.10.2023, both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Co