IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MANAGER ADV U.P SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9267 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. approval for headmistress appointment was contested due to procedural issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners highlighted potential harm due to delays in the appeal. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court emphasized timely consideration in educational matters. (Para 6) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026 The writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The 1st petitioner is the Manager and the 2nd petitioner is the Headmistress of ADVUP School, Peringandur, Wadakkanchery.
2. The 1st petitioner has preferred an application seeking approval for the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as Headmistress. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Headmistress with effect from 01.06.2019 consequent on the transfer of one T.N Rajani on 10.04.2018 to BJBLP School, Ariyasseri under the same Management.
Earlier, an application submitted by the petitioners for approval of Headmistress was declined by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred a revision before the 1st respondent and the same was disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter subject to conditions.
3. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent reopened the file and returned the proposal on the ground that the 2nd petitioner has not submitted the seniority list as on the date of appointment and that the 2nd petitioner has not passed the KTET Examination. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the 1st petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 1st respondent. However, no further action was taken in the matter, contend the petitioners.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader representing the respondents.
5. The petitioners would urge that any delay in finalisation of proceedings in Ext.P2 is unjustified and irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioners if Ext.P2 is not expeditiously considered.
6. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that Ext.P2 appeal should be considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with law.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and positively before 30.04.2026 as the 2nd petitioner is retiring on that date.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.