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) 21114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
LEO. K.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10298 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.T.THOMAS, SRI.MATHEW BOB KURIAN, SRI.NIKHIL BERNY
For the Respondents: SRI. V.VENUGOPAL

Judicial review on administrative decisions affecting teacher appointments ensures fairness and adherence to established precedents.

Headnote:The court examined G.O.(Rt.) No.76/2013/G.Edn. and previous judgments regarding approval of HSST appointments, confirming the entitlement of petitioner to such appointments based on past decisions (Para 2). The main issue centered around the decision to approve effective dates for appointments, leading to judicial evaluation of procedural fairness (Para 5). The judgment concludes with an order directing timely consideration of the petitioner's pending representation for appointment approval.

Table of Content
1. entitlement to hsst appointments based on previous judgments. (Para 1 , 2)
2. pending representation for appointment reconsideration. (Para 3)
3. court orders timely consideration of representations. (Para 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2026 The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as HSST (Economics) with effect from 13.08.2010 as a Guest Teacher and was subsequently appointed as HSST (Junior) (Economics) with effect from 01.12.2011 and the same was approved.

2. Eight other Teachers were also appointed as HSST (Junior) in the School on the same day. While so, the State Government issued G.O.(Rt.) No.76/2013/G.Edn. dated 23.02.2023 converting HSST (Junior) posts to HSST posts. The above eight Teachers filed W.P.(C) No.20849/2013 and this Court declared that the Government Order dated 23.02.2023 shall have effect from the commencement of the academic year 2011-2012. Writ Appeal and SLP (C) filed by the State were dismissed. Pursuant to the judgment, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 16.05.2025 approving the appointments of the eight Teachers as HSST with effect from 01.12.2011. The petitioner was also appointed as HSST (Junior) on 01.12.2011 and was entitled to the same benefit.

3. Seeking approval of the appointment as HSST with effect from 01.12.2011 in the light of the judgment of this Court as well as the Apex Court, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 17.06.2025 before the 1st respondent, which is pending consideration.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with, in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

5. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 within a period of three months, adverting to Exts.P2 to P5 also.

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