Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
JESMY K JAMES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34742 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.A.K.PREETHA, SMT.DEVIKA MOHAN, SMT.RESHMA R.KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SR. GP SRI. PREMCHAND .R. NAIR
The court held that teacher appointment approvals should relate back to the initial appointment dates if all necessary criteria are satisfied.
Headnote:The petitioners, H.S.S.T. teachers, sought approval of their appointment effective from 03.12.2012, which was approved only from 30.11.2013. The Court referenced its previous rulings that endorsed retroactive approval relating to educational posts. The Court ordered reconsideration of the approval and directed that approvals relate back to the initial appointment date, conditioned upon meeting necessary parameters.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointment and approval of teachers. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. representation of both parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. legal precendents regarding retroactive approvals. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2026 The petitioners, who are working as H.S.S.T.
(Junior) in Physics and Mathematics respectively, 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 and P2(a) appointment orders and to set aside Exts.P3 and P3(a) to the extent the appointment of the petitioners were approved only with effect from 30.11.2013. 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. The 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 can be reconsidered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
4. The petitioners were appointed as Higher Secondary School Teachers with effect from 03.12.2012. However, when the Regional Deputy Director issued Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders dated 25.08.2014, the appointment of the petitioners were approved only with effect from 30.11.2013, on the ground that the new posts were created only with effect from that date.
5. This Court considered the legality of such appointment in the midst of the academic year, in W.P.(C) No.19141 of 2013. This Court disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment holding that sanction has to relate back to the concerned academic year when the batch was sanctioned. The matter was taken up by the State before the Division Bench of this Court filing W.A.No.724 of 2015 . The Division Bench upheld Ext.P5 judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Hon’ble Apex Court also, as per Ext.P7 order dated 30.04.2024, upheld the judgment of this Court.
6. An identical case came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.4296 of 2026. In the said writ petition, this Court declared that the prospective operation of the sanction for upgradation is arbitrary and sustainable.
In the afore facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the issue in the light of Exts.P5 to P7 judgments/orders. If the petitioners satisfy all other parameters, the approval to the appointment of the petitioners should relate back to the initial date of their appointment. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months.
Sd/-
