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) 18295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
BIJEESH A.K. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3794 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.DINESH KUMAR K., SRI.HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
For the Respondents: SRI.V. VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Governmental decisions affecting employment must comply with due process rights, ensuring no salary is halted without appropriate notice and opportunity for the affected party.

Headnote:This judgment involves the interpretation of the Kerala Education Rules, specifically concerning the approval of teacher appointments. The petitioner, seeking approval for their appointment, was denied salary without proper notice, leading to a writ petition. The Court directed the authority to consider the petitioner's Revision Petition expeditiously. The primary issue is whether the stopping of salary without a hearing is justified. The Court held that due process was not followed and mandated the revisional authority to act within three months ensuring the petitioner's opportunity to be heard. The writ petition is thus directed for expedited consideration.

Table of Content
1. teacher appointments approval and salary claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arbitrary salary stoppage addressed. (Para 3)
3. petitioner argues lack of justification. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court mandates timely revision petition consideration. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2026 The petitioner and other Teachers seeking approval of their appointments by filing W.P. (C) No.15198/2024 before this Court, and this Court, as per judgment dated 11.04.2024, directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the Revision Petition within five months, after hearing all affected parties.

2. On the basis of Ext.P1 judgment dated 11.04.2024, the 1st respondent had issued G.O.(Rt.) No.8598/2024/G.Edn. dated 06.12.2024. Thereafter, the 5th respondent had approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 07.06.2019 and issued order dated 28.05.2025. The petitioner claimed the salary up to November 2025 and it was encashed on 04.12.2025.

3. In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer issued an order directing the Headmaster to stop the payment of salary to the petitioner. It is highly arbitrary and illegal. It was issued without notice to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court filing this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5.

5. The petitioner would urge that there is no justification to stop the payment of salary of the petitioner and Ext.P5 is highly arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was not heard while the Government passed Ext.P6 order.

6. Be that as it may, from the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 Revision Petition before the 1st respondent invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959. Ext.P7 being a statutory Revision Petition, it would only just and proper that the revisional authority considers the same within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Manager.

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