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) 13660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
M K SAID IBRAHIM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6031 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BALAGANGADHARANUNIKKAT
For the Respondents: SMT. V.A. HARITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Refusal of appointment approval without legal grounds or adherence to procedural discrepancies does not hold scrutiny.

Headnote:The petitioner, having commenced his service as UPST since 01.06.2011 and promoted to HST on 03.06.2024, faced hurdles in appointment approval due to management disputes. The court found the refusal actioned on procedural grounds without legal scrutiny, ruling that the approval should be granted within two months. Key issue framed regarding the legality of the refusal based on non-compliance to portal submission. Court ordered reconsideration of appointment approval without insisting on portal processes. Final ruling directs approval of the appointment within stipulated time.

Table of Content
1. management disputes hinder approval processes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural grounds for refusal lack legal justification. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026 The petitioner, who commenced his service as UPST with effect from 01.06.2011, was promoted as HST (Social Science) with effect from 03.06.2024, as can be seen from Ext.P5. The appointment of the petitioner as HST has not been approved.

2. The petitioner states that there is a management dispute in respect of administration of the School. At the same time, the District Educational Officer is not acting as Manager. In the circumstances, if approval of the petitioner’s appointment is declined, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship.

3. Ext.P6 would indicate that an application was submitted by the Manager of the School on 03.06.2024 seeking approval. However, it was returned by the District Educational Officer stating that the application should be made through Samanwaya Portal. It is evident that since there is a management dispute, they are not able to upload the application through Samanwaya Portal. By Ext.P10 communication dated 24.11.2025, the District Educational Officer has informed the Headmistress that the issue of approval of the petitioner’s appointment cannot be considered as senior UPSTs namely, Sindhu T., G. Sreemathi and Sharmila K have not submitted their relinquishment letters attested by the Manager. As there is a management dispute, the question of attestation does not arise.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that declining approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that application for approval is not made through Samanwaya Portal and that the relinquishment letters given by the senior Teachers are not attested by the Manager cannot stand the scrutiny of law. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s appointment as UPST was approved. The petitioner is working as HST since 03.06.2024.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the request for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as HST (Social Science) with effect from 03.06.2024, within a period of two months, if necessary, issuing notice to the senior Teachers, who have given relinquishment letters and without insisting for uploading the application through Samanwaya Portal.

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