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) 14380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
GEETHA V – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6573 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, KUM.THULASI K. RAJ, SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY, SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
For the Respondents: SMT. HARITHA, GP

The court emphasized the need for expeditious review of appointment approvals, considering prior judgments for fairness.

Headnote:The petitioners seek the quashing of government orders denying their appointment approval from initial dates and claim entitlement based on past judgments. The Court directs the first respondent to consider the revision petition, emphasizing expeditious processing within three months, ensuring that prior judgments influence the decision.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek retrospective appointment approval. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs expedited consideration of revision petition. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P3 and P4 to the extent to which they deny approval to the petitioners' appointment from the initial dates of appointment, as unjust, illegal and unsustainable;

ii. To declare that the petitioners are entitled to approval of appointment from the initial dates of appointment as indicated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition;

iii. To declare that the petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners in Exts. P5 and P6 judgments and are entitled to the same benefit of retrospective approval from the respective initial dates of appointment, as shown in paragraph 2 of the writ petition;

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to approve the appointments of the petitioners from the initial dates of appointment in the light of Exts. P5 and P6;

v. To direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 revision petition;

vi.To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case.

vii.To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular document.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioners have submitted Ext.P7 revision before the 1st respondent and pray that a direction be issued to consider the same. According to the petitioners, the issue has already been considered by this Court in Exts.P5 and P6 judgments.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that this writ petition need not be retained and that a direction can be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P7, taking into account the judgments in Exts. P5 and P6.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i. The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

ii. While deciding the matter, the 1st respondent will consider the applicability of Exts.P5 and P7 judgments passed by this Court.

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