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) 14388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
NANDANAN G – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2026



The Court mandated the timely consideration of promotion requests while ensuring fair hearing principles are adhered to.

Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks to quash certain orders and seek promotion to Headmaster. The petitioner requests a writ of mandamus for promotion and timely consideration of his petition. The Court concluded the petition by directing the relevant authorities to determine the petitioner's claims within a specified period and afford all parties an opportunity to be heard. The directions were framed to ensure a fair and prompt resolution of the petitioner's requests.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for statutory promotions. (Para 1)
2. court observations on petitioner's request. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-2 and P-3 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th Respondent to grant statutory promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Headmaster as he is the senior most qualified UPST (iii) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get promotion as Headmaster and its approval w.e.f 01.06.2024 (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P-4 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, within a time limit.

(v) dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition.

(vi) pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P4 by the 1st respondent .

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

After hearing both sides, I think that prayer can be allowed.

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

i) The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4, and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AJ

Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 24.02.2026
Judgment dictated 24.02.2026
Draft judgment placed 26.02.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 27.02.2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.06.1999 ALONG WITH APPROVAL RECORDED THEREON Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

AEOCDM/278/2025-B DATED 28.05.2025 OF THE AEO, CHADAYAMANGALAM ADDRESSING THE TEACHER IN CHARGE ALONG WITH TYPED COPY Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

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