Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
SWAPNA E. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court must recognize the effective date of appointment. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. factual differences noted by the government pleader. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final directive for reconsideration. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026 The petitioner, who is working as HSST (Junior)
(Mathematics), has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the actual date of appointment as in Ext.P2 appointment order and to set aside Ext.P3 to the extent the approval was granted only with effect from 29.08.2013. The petitioner submits that the legal issue involved in the writ petition is covered in her 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 petitioner 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 petitioner can be reconsidered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader
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
