1. Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to compel the consideration of an application for approval as the Corporate Manager of an educational institution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 75008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Ashok Kumar R – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38837 OF 2026
Important Points
The court directed the educational authority to consider an application for the approval of a Corporate Manager within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with statutory duties and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Subject
Administrative Law - Education / Appointment Approval
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Administrative Law - Approval of Appointment - Failure of authority to consider a statutory application for approval of a Corporate Manager is an abdication of duty and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 1)
Issues: Whether the 2nd respondent is mandated to consider and pass orders on the application for approving the petitioner as the Corporate Manager.
Issues: Whether the 2nd respondent is mandated to consider and pass orders on the application for approving the petitioner as the Corporate Manager.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R. Ganesh, Elvin Peter P.J., Adarsh Babu C.S., Reshma Prakash Kurian
For the Respondents: Rukhiyabi Mohammed Kunhi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R. Ganesh, Elvin Peter P.J., Adarsh Babu C.S., Reshma Prakash Kurian
For the Respondents: Rukhiyabi Mohammed Kunhi
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought a time-bound direction for the disposal of an pending approval application, to which the respondent State expressed no objection. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court found it appropriate to entertain the request for a time-bound consideration of the pending application to ensure administrative accountability. (Para 4 )
4. Statutory authorities are under a public duty to consider and pass orders on pending applications within a reasonable time frame. (Para 4 )
5. The court directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the approval application within two months after providing a hearing to affected parties. (Para 1 )
6. Does a statutory authority have a legal obligation to decide upon an application for managerial approval within a specific timeframe?
Yes, public authorities are mandated to exercise their statutory functions and consider pending applications within a reasonable period, often enforced by the court through time-bound directions in writ proceedings. (Para 1 , 4 )
7. What is the requirement for natural justice when a statutory authority considers an application for approval?
The authority must provide an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and any other parties who may be affected by the decision on the pending application. (Para 1 )
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 38837 of 2026 --------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i) “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 application for approving the petitioner as the Corporate Manager of RSVM Higher Secondary School, Prayar forthwith;
(ii) To declare that the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering and passing orders on Ext.P5 approving the appointment of the petitioner as Corporate Manager of RVSM HSS, Prayar is absolutely illegal and amounts to abdication of statutory duties and is therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(iii) It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of English translation of Vernacular Documents.
(iv) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approval application of the petitioner-Management may be directed to be considered within a time frame.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. I think that prayer can be allowed.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction :
1) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P5, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
