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) 15549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
FR. ANTONY ANCHUTHAIKAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9080 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD, SRI.A.RENJIT, SRI.GOKUL R.NAIR, SRI.ANSALAM N.X., SMT.ADITHYA RAJESH K.
For the Respondents: SRI. V. VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Rounding off fractional figures in post allocation is a statutory requirement under Kerala Education Rules.

Headnote:The petitioner, General Manager of an Educational Agency, challenges the allocation of HSST (Junior) posts as arbitrary under Kerala Education Rules. The court affirms the need for consideration of the revision petition regarding the 7th transfer post. The court directs that the 1st respondent must address the petitioner's grievance within four months. The issue raised relates to the interpretation of fractional figures in the allocation of posts. The court highlights that the rules require rounding to higher integers and this prejudicially affects the petitioner’s rights. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 Revision Petition within a period of four months with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5.

Table of Content
1. management of posts by educational agencies. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claim against allocation of posts under transfer quota. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments against the legality of the allocation process. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's directive to consider the revision petition. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of March, 2026 The petitioner states that he is the General Manager of the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Cochin, which manages four Higher Secondary Schools. In these Institutions, there are 25 sanctioned posts of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior).

2. As per Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules , 25% of the total HSST (Junior) posts are to be filled by transfer from qualified service Teachers under the Educational Agency and 75% by direct appointment. Applying the 25% quota to 25 posts yields 6.25 posts. The petitioner contends that in view of the applicable Circulars, the fractional figure must be rounded off to the next higher integer, thereby entitling the management to fill 7 posts by-transfer.

3. A senior Teacher, Smt. Cinla Antony, claimed that only two posts had been filled under the transfer quota and sought appointment against the remaining transfer vacancies. Pursuant to directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent passed order dated 11.12.2024 holding that only six posts can be filled up by-transfer and that the transfer quota stood exhausted. The order rejected her claim and further directed cancellation of appointment of Sri. Jose Anoob M.S., who had been appointed as HSST (Junior) (Maths) under the 7th turn of the transfer quota.

4. Subsequently, Sri. Jose Anoob challenged Ext.P1 before this Court, which directed consideration of his Revision Petition. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(Rt) No.2744/2025/G.Edn. dated 21.04.2025, pursuant to which his appointment was approved as per order dated 23.06.2025. However, no decision was taken regarding entitlement to the

7th transfer post out of the 25 sanctioned posts.

5. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to rearrange staff appointments through order dated 20.01.2026. The rejection of the 7th post in Ext.P1 was based on Government Letter dated 27.07.2019. However, the said letter does not prohibit rounding off fractional figures. Circular dated 18.07.2013 expressly clarifies that fractional figures are to be rounded off to the next higher integer. The subsequent Circular dated 08.05.2024 does not restrict such rounding off. Therefore, the stand that only six posts can be filled by- transfer is arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 Revision Petition before the 1st respondent challenging Ext.P1, but the same has not yet been considered.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with, in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the finding in Ext.P1 that only six out of 25 posts of HSST (Junior) can be filled up by-transfer is illegal and arbitrary. It violates the provisions of Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959. The Rule specifically provides that 25% of the total posts shall be filled up by-transfer on seniority-cum-

suitability basis. Fractional figures are to be rounded off.

8. I do not intend to go into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner at this stage since the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 Revision Petition in this regard before the 1st respondent. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 1st respondent considers the grievance of the petitioner raised in Ext.P8, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 Revision Petition within a period of four months with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5.

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