Promotion disputes under educational rules must consider prior decisions and allow for fresh petitions regarding approval.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as UPSA under the 2^nd respondent on 27.06.1994 in a leave vacancy. The said appointment was duly approved by the 1^st respondent as per order dated 21.11.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed in a regular vacancy with effect from 17.07.1995, which was also approved as per order dated

21.11.1995.

2. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications and is fully qualified for promotion to the post of HSA (Social Science) and is a Rule 43 claimant under Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. During the academic year 2015-2016, consequent to the retirement of Smt. K.P. Ratnavally on 31.03.2015 and the promotion of another Teacher as Headmistress, vacancies of HSA (Social Science) arose.

3. The petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C)

No.15788/2015 and as per judgment dated 28.05.2015, directions were issued to consider his claim. Pursuant thereto, the 1^st respondent passed an order dated 22.06.2015, finding the petitioner qualified and he was appointed as HSA (Social Science) with effect from 01.06.2015. The proposal for approval was forwarded on 27.07.2015. However, approval to the petitioner’s appointment was given with effect from 27.07.2015. The period from 01.06.2015 to 26.07.2015 was rejected on the ground of delay in submission of the proposal.

4. Aggrieved by the denial of approval, the petitioner submitted a Revision Petition dated 12.12.2016 before the Government, which is still pending consideration. Subsequently, as per the judgment dated 13.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.17265/2015, this Court declared that the petitioner is senior and a Rule 43 claimant, thereby recognising his entitlement for promotion.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.12.2024 pointing out that approval of a junior Teacher, from an earlier date, would adversely affect his seniority. The District Educational Officer, as per reply dated 21.02.2025, has stated that a proposal has been submitted to the Government for granting notional approval to the said junior Teacher and that further action would be taken only after receipt of orders from the Government. Aggrieved by the continued denial of approval for the period from 01.06.2015 to 26.07.2015 and the pendency of the Revision Petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents respondents 1 and 2. Notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with, in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

7. The petitioner’s grievance is regarding the order passed in Ext.P3. By the endorsement made in Ext.P3, the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Social Science) was approved with effect from 27.07.2015 till the post exists, on the basis of the conditions stipulated in the Government Order dated 29.01.2016. The petitioner would submit that the approval so granted ought to have been from 01.06.2015. 8. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed that the issue agitated by the petitioner relates to the year 2016 and therefore it is a stale play.

9. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that a dispute regarding appointment is pending consideration before the Government in a Revision Petition relating to the appointment of the 4^th respondent based on Ext.P5 judgment. If that be so, the Government can consider the grievance raised by the petitioner also taking into account the subsequent developments.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of per