Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
SUDHAMOL V.M. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7750 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SHRI.PRESAD V.G.
For the Respondents: SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The court mandates reconsideration of appointment approvals based on seniority, emphasizing procedural compliance with existing directives.
Headnote:This judgment pertains to the approval of appointments made by educational authorities. The petitioner argued that the approval was unjustly denied despite their seniority. The court found merit in the case, determining that the review petition should be considered to address prior directives. The writ petition is disposed of with directions for timely consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's appointments lack approval despite seniority. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties debate the justification related to appointment approvals. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court orders reconsideration of review petition and prior decisions. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026 The petitioner was appointed as UPST in CMS High School, Kaanam from 01.06.2017 onwards. Approval to Ext.P1 was declined by the District Educational Officer, Kanjirappally. Then, Appeal was moved by the 7th respondent. It was returned by the 3rd respondent for resubmission of the proposal to the District Educational Officer later. In compliance, though resubmitted, proposal for approval to Ext.P1 was again declined by the District Educational Officer, Kanjirappally. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P4 from 15.07.2018. It was also not granted approval.
2. The petitioner submitted that junior appointees under the management have got approval whereas a senior appointee, the petitioner, is trailing behind. It cannot be legally appreciated and the Government has issued a number of orders on the point. From 01.06.2020, the petitioner was offered another appointment under the Management. It was disposed of by the Director as per Order dated 11.04.2025 requiring to grant approval to the petitioner in terms of G.O.(P) No. 4/2021/G.Edn. dated 06.02.2021. 3. Hence, the petitioner moved the Government.
She also moved W.P.(C) No.3815 of 2025 for reliefs. Pursuant to the judgment therein, the Government issued Ext.P17 for approval to the petitioner from 15.07.2019. Government has not addressed the question of approval to Exts.P1 and P4. Hence, the petitioner moved Ext.P18 Review Petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government omitted to consider the question of Exts.P1 and P4 appointments for approval.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
5. The petitioner would urge that there is no justification in granting approval to the subsequent appointments without attending the proposal in respect of senior appointees. The Educational Officer has failed to follow Exts.P8 and P9.
6. Be that as it may, I find that as against Ext.P17 Government Order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P18 Review Petition. I find that this Court in Ext.P16 judgment had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for approval from 01.06.2017 onwards. Ext.P17 order would indicate that the claim was considered only from 15.07.2019 onwards. In the circumstances, in view of the specific direction in Ext.P16, I am of the view that Ext.P18 review petition should be considered.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P18 review petition and pass appropriate orders thereon adverting to Ext.P16 judgment and Ext.P17 Government Order and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Sd/-
