Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
NOUFAL KANDAM VALIYATH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMMERCE), M.I.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PERODE, PERODE P.O., NADAPURAM (VIA) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4296 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SRI.HARISH R. MENON, SMT.K.N.ABHA, SRI.A.G.PRASANTH, SMT.VARSHA SAHAJAN, SMT.MARY HEDWIG BABY, SMT.FATHIMA HASHIM, SMT.ALEENA SEBASTIAN, SMT.ANNU FRANCIS
For the Respondents: SRI. V. VENUGOPAL

The court declared the prospective upgradation of teacher posts as arbitrary and legally unsustainable, affirming the need for its operation to commence from the academic year.

Headnote:The petitioners, who are Higher Secondary School Teachers, challenged the prospective upgradation of their posts. The court found that the issue was previously addressed in its ruling, which declared the upgradation order arbitrary and unsustainable. Thus, the court quashed a part of the Government's order, effective from the academic year's commencement, requiring verification and approval.

Table of Content
1. claims regarding the upgradation of teacher posts based on workload. (Para 2)
2. court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 3)
3. court finds earlier judgments binding and quashes the government order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 This writ petition is filed by Teachers who are working now as HSST in various Aided Schools.

2. The petitioners would urge that though there were sufficient work load justifying upgradation of the post from HSST (Junior) to HSST, no orders were issued in this regard. The issue involved is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No.724 of 2015 , contend the petitioners.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

4. The legal issue involved was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.20849/2013 and connected cases, wherein this Court has held that the prospective operation of the sanction for upgradation being based on no tangible or valid reasons, the same has necessarily to be held as arbitrary and legally unsustainable. In the judgment, this Court set aside the impugned order to the extent it accords sanction for upgradation of posts of HSST, prospectively with effect from the date of the Government Order.

5. The pleadings would indicate that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20849/2013 was subjected to challenge in W.A.No.724 of 2015 and connected cases and the Division Bench of this Court upheld the judgment. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the State of Kerala filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.18120 of 2019. The Hon'ble Apex Court also dismissed the SLA.

6. Considering the afore facts, I find that the issue involved in this case is covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20849/2013. The writ petition is therefore only to be allowed.

In the afore circumstances, it is declared that the prospective operation of the sanction for upgradation is arbitrary and unsustainable. G.O.(Ms.) No.106/2017/G.Edn. dated 21.08.2017, to the extent it accords sanction for upgradation of posts prospectively, is quashed. The Government Order in its application to the petitioners has effect from the commencement of the academic year, subject to the appointees satisfying all other parameters. Consequential benefits, if any, shall be made available to the petitioners within a period of four months. The sanction of anterior dates of upgradation will be subject to physical verification by the competent authorities as ordered in W.A.No.724 of 2015.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document