Kerala High Court
Preethimol C. J vs Chinju T. K on 9 July, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
WA NO. 493 OF 2020 1 2025:KER:50110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 493 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2019 IN WP(C) NO.2025 OF
2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:
PREETHIMOL C. J.,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O. N. G. DIJU, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
S.N.U.P. SCHOOL, THRIKKAKARA, KANGARAPPADY, VADACODE
P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 021. (APPELLANTS
NAME IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS PRRETHAMOL IN W.P.(C))
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:
1 CHINJU T. K.,
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL,
THRIKKAKARA, KANGARAPPADY, VADACODE P. O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682 021.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
3 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101.
WA NO. 493 OF 2020 2 2025:KER:50110
5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101.
6 THE MANAGER
S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, THRIKKAKARA, KANGARAPPADY,
VADACODE P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 021.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
SHRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2025,
THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 493 OF 2020 3 2025:KER:50110
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.2025 of 2015 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 28.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the 1 st respondent herein. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge quashed the orders passed by the Educational Authority, in respect of approval of appointment of the 1st respondent contained under Ext.P1 appointment order dated 01.06.2011 issued by the 6th respondent Manager of S.N.U.P. School, Thrikkakara, as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) and other orders passed by the Authorities including the State Government and directed the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent on and with effect from 01.06.2011 and directed to provide all consequential service benefits treating approval of the 1st respondent with effect from 01.06.2011 and pass appropriate orders at the earliest possible time and, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.
2. The facts which led to the filing of the writ appeal can be summarised as under:
WA NO. 493 OF 2020 4 2025:KER:50110 The 1st respondent was appointed as LPSA in S.N.U.P. School, Thrikkakara, by the 6th respondent Manager, with effect from 01.06.2011 by Ext.P1 appointment order dated 01.06.2011. The appellant was also appointed as L.P.S.A. by the 6th respondent in the School by Ext.P2 appointment order dated 02.06.2011 with effect from 02.06.2011. The appointment of the 1st respondent was against one additional vacancy sanctioned by the 5th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, in the Staff Fixation Order dated 12.11.2010 for the year 2010-2011, as evident from Ext.P3 Staff Fixation Order. The appointment of the appellant was against an anticipated additional vacancy during 2011-12. However, the 5th respondent approved the appointment of the 1st respondent with effect from 01.10.2011 to 31.03.2012 on daily wages and on regular basis with effect from 01.06.2012. At the same time, the appointment of the appellant was approved on regular basis with effect from 02.06.2011. As a consequence, the appellant has marched over the 1st respondent in terms of seniority, emoluments and all other service conditions. By Ext.P4 order dated 14.10.2011, the 5th respondent rejected the approval of the 1st respondent on regular basis with effect from 01.06.2011. Though the 6th respondent Manager, filed an appeal against Ext.P4 WA NO. 493 OF 2020 5 2025:KER:50110 order before the 4th respondent District Educational Officer, the same was rejected by Ext.P5 order dated 08.02.2011. The 6th respondent then filed a statutory revision before the 3 rd respondent Director of Public Instruction, which was also ended in rejection by Ext.P7 order dated 17.09.2012. Against Ext.P7, the 6th respondent filed a revision under Rule 92, Chapter XIVA of KER before the Government. But by Ext.P9 letter dated 19.07.2013, the Government informed that the approval should be granted to the 1st respondent on daily wages with effect from 01.10.2011 to 31.03.2012 and on regular basis with effect from 01.06.2012. It is further stated in that communication that approval should be granted to the appellant on daily wages with effect from 01.10.2011 and on regular basis, if she is found to be eligible for the same on determining the staff strength for 2011-2012 as per UID. The 6th respondent filed a revision before the Government against Ext.P9, and by Ext.P11 letter, it was informed to the 6 th respondent by the Government that the request for approving the appointment of the 1st respondent with effect from 01.06.2011 cannot be considered. Meanwhile, the Government issued Ext.P16 letter to the 5th respondent, in which it is stated that the appointment of the appellant can be approved with effect from WA NO. 493 OF 2020 6 2025:KER:50110 01.06.2011, since the 5th respondent had already issued the Staff Fixation Order and the appointment was made prior to the Government Order dated 01.10.2011. As a result of Exts.P11 and P16, the appellant, who was appointed later to the 1st respondent, became senior to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent approached this Court with the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Call for the records leading to Exts.P1, P4, P5, P7, P9 and P11 and quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the extent they do not grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA w.e.f. 01.06.2011 with all consequential benefits including salary and allowances in the regular scale of pay for the post of LPSA. ii. call for the records leading to Exts.P2 and P16 quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the extent they give approval to the appointment of the 6 th respondent as LPSA w.e.f. 02.06.2011 and 01.06.2011 respectively, before the superior claim of the petitioner for regular appointment w.e.f. 01.06.2011 on regular scale of pay has been honoured.
iii. declare that the petitioner is entitled to get her appointment as LPSA made as per Ext.P1 approved on regular basis on regular scale of pay before the appointment of the 6th respondent is approved as LPSA on regular basis. iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA in the 5th WA NO. 493 OF 2020 7 2025:KER:50110 respondent's School w.e.f. 01.06.2011 with all consequential service and monetary benefits, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
2.1. The State, which is arrayed as the 1st respondent in the writ petition, filed a counter affidavit dated 24.04.2017, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The appellant also filed a counter affidavit dated 25.02.2015, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) and R6(b) documents and opposing the reliefs in the writ petition. Along with I.A.No.3819 of 2015, the appellant produced Ext.R6(c), a copy of the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. Thereafter, the appellant filed an additional counter affidavit dated 15.10.2019, producing therewith Exts.R6(d) to R6(f) documents.
2.2. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel on both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, the 6th respondent is now before this Court with this writ appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/the 6th respondent in the writ petition, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.
WA NO. 493 OF 2020 8 2025:KER:50110
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that though the 1st respondent sought setting aside of Ext.P16 Government Letter dated 23.09.2014, addressed to the 5th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, the learned Single Judge did not quash the same. However, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents 2 to 6 to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent with effect from 01.06.2011 and whereas no such relief was granted in respect of the appointment of the appellant. By Exts.P9 and P16 letters, it was directed to approve the appointment of the appellant with effect from 01.06.2011. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent argued that the appointment of the 1st respondent was with effect from 01.06.2011 and whereas the appointment of the appellant was with effect from 02.06.2011. After Ext.P16 Government letter, the Assistant Educational Officer approved the appointment of the appellant with effect from 02.06.2011. The said order is not challenged by the appellant, and hence, the claim of the appellant is not maintainable.
WA NO. 493 OF 2020 9 2025:KER:50110
6. From the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that the appellant as well as the 1 st respondent were working on daily wage basis in S.N.U.P.School, Thrikkakara. Later, they were given regular appointments by virtue of Exts.P1 and P2 appointment orders issued by the 6 th respondent Manager of the School. From Exts.P1 and P2, we notice that the appointment of the 1st respondent was with effect from 01.06.2011 and, whereas, the appointment of the appellant was with effect from 02.06.2011. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that such a difference in the date of appointment was for the reason that the Government has directed the Manager of the School to give the first appointment to protected teachers.
7. It is true that in Ext.P16 letter dated 23.09.2014, the Government clarified that the appointment of the appellant can be approved with effect from 01.06.2011, if the appellant is entitled otherwise, after the approval of the Staff Fixation. But from the endorsement in Ext.P2 by the Assistant Educational Officer, Aluva, dated 13.11.2014, it can be seen that the appointment of the appellant was approved with effect from 02.06.2011. It was after Ext.P16 letter, the approval was granted by the Assistant WA NO. 493 OF 2020 10 2025:KER:50110 Educational Officer. The appellant did not challenge her approval in the post, which was made even prior to the filing of the writ petition, by the 1st respondent. When the appointment orders show the date of appointment of the 1st respondent as 01.06.2011 and that of the appellant as 02.06.2011 and it was confirmed by the subsequent orders, especially, the non-challenge of the approval of the appointment of the appellant as seen in Ext.P2, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not made out sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-