Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
ANOJ MADATHIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners sought early appointment approval. (Para 1) |
| 2. government contested based on factual differences. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directed reconsideration based on prior judgments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. court ordered decision issuance within three months. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026 The petitioners, who are working as HSST (Junior), have filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioners from the actual date of appointment as in Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b) and P2(c) appointment orders and to set aside Exts.P3, P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c) to the extent the approval was granted only with effect from 19.08.2013. The petitioners submit that the legal issue involved in the writ petition is covered in their favour as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.4296 of 2026.
2. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the case of the petitioners cannot be compared with the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.4296 of 2026. There are factual differences. However, in the light of Exts.P5 and P6, the issue raised by the petitioners
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
