The approval of teaching appointments must be effective from the initial appointment date, notwithstanding subsequent sanction dates, ensuring retrospective benefits under statutory schemes.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is presently working as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) (Commerce) in the 6^th respondent’s School. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order dated 15.07.2013 issued by the General Education Department, Government of Kerala, whereby her appointment was approved only with effect from 12.08.2013, instead of from the original date of her appointment. The petitioner’s permanent appointment approval order dated 07.08.2014, granting approval only with prospective effect on the basis of Ext.P4, is illegal and arbitrary, contends the petitioner.

2. The 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P2 order dated

03.08.2011 approved the sanction of new Commerce Batch to the 6^th respondent’s School from the academic year 2011-

2012 and 2012-2013. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed to the newly created additional Commerce Batch on 01.03.2012. The petitioner was appointed against the newly sanctioned additional Batch of the 6^th respondent’s School by the 2^nd respondent through order dated 03.08.2011. Therefore, the post to which the petitioner was appointed is permanent post and hence the petitioner is entitled for approval with effect from the date of their initial appointment.

3. Rule 12B of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959 provides that if any additional posts are sanctioned against which appointments are made in anticipation of sanction of such post or posts, according to rules, such post or posts shall be deemed to have been created from the date of appointments. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed to permanent post and hence the petitioner is entitled to get her appointment approved with effect from her actual date of appointment.

4. The 2^nd respondent through its order dated

15.07.2013, clearly stated that the posts and additional batches were sanctioned in the academic year 2011-2012 itself. Therefore, giving prospective effects to the appointments made against the sanctioned post is highly illegal, contends the petitioner.

5. This Court in W.P.(C) No.19141 of 2013 has considered the claim of similarly situated Teachers for approval with effect from the date of appointments / the date of commencement of classes on sanctioning of the additional batches. In the case of the petitioners therein also that the additional batch was sanctioned as per order dated 03.08.2011 and there were sufficient number of posts for their appointment as on the date of their initial appointment. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court in the aforementioned judgment held that persons like the petitioner herein appointed as Higher Secondary School Teachers are entitled to approval with effect from the initial date of their appointment notwithstanding the date from which the post was sanctioned.

6. The said judgment was upheld by this Court in W.A No.960 of 2016 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18120 of 2019 as per order dated 30.04.2024. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to similar reliefs.

7. If the appointment of the petitioner is approved with effect from the date of her initial appointment, which is well before the introduction of National Pension System from 01.04.2013, the petitioner is entitled to be enrolled under the Statutory Pension Scheme.

8. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking to direct the 4^th respondent to issue revised orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the date of her initial appointment, i.e., 01.03.2013. The petitioner has also sought a further direction to the 4^th respondent to enroll the petitioner under Statutory Pension Scheme and the amount already remitted from the petitioner towards the Contributory Pension Scheme are refunded as expeditiously