[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Suneetha Baby Daniel vs State Of Kerala on 8 December, 2025
Author: T.R. Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.(C)Nos.16878 of 2017
& 30905 of 2019
1 2025:KER:94577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16878 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
SUNEETHA BABY DANIEL
JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER,
AARON UP SCHOOL,
PAPPINISSERY,
KANNUR.
BY ADV SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
SHANTI BHAWAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PAPPINISSERY,
KANNUR - 670 561.
4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MATTANNUR,
KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
W.P.(C)Nos.16878 of 2017
& 30905 of 2019
2 2025:KER:94577
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF CSI DIOCESAN
SCHOOLS(MALABAR AND WAYANAD AREA),
CSI NORTH KERALA DIOCESAN EDUCATIONAL AGENCHY,
CSI CORPORATE MANAGER'S OFFICE,
BANK ROAD,
KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
6 SMT.NISHA JANET
HSA (HINDI),
BEM HIGH SCHOOL,
PALKKAD - 678 001.
ADDL.R7 & R8 IMPLEADED
ADDL. R7. THE HEAD MASTER
BEM UP SCHOOL,
ANJARAKANDY- 670312
ADDL.R8. THE HEAD MASTER
AARON UP SCHOOL,
PAPPINISSERY,
KANNUR- 670561.
[ADDL.R8 AND R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
13.11.2019 IN IA 13061/2017].
ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED
ADDL.R9. THE MANAGER
SPARK PROJECT,
MANAGEMENT UNIT,
DPC BUILDING,
1ST FLOOR,
KERALA UNIVERSITY SENATE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695034
(ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
14.07.2022 IN IA NO.3/2022)
ADDL.R10 IMPLEADED
ADDL.R10: LESLIE JOHNSON,
LG HINDI TEACHER,
B E M UP SCHOOL,
W.P.(C)Nos.16878 of 2017
& 30905 of 2019
3 2025:KER:94577
CODACAL,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 108.
(ADDL.R10 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
26.11.2025 IN IA NO.2/2020 IN WP(C)
NO.16878/2017).
BY ADVS.
SRI RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26.11.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).30905/2019, THE COURT ON
08.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.16878 of 2017
& 30905 of 2019
4 2025:KER:94577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30905 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 LESSLIE JOHNSON,
L G HINDI TEACHER,
B E M UP SCHOOL,
CODACAL,
TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 108.
2 JAISON M.,
LG HINDI TEACHER,
B E M P HS SCHOOL,
THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
CSI SCHOOLS MALABAR AND WAYANAD,
BANK ROAD,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.
W.P.(C)Nos.16878 of 2017
& 30905 of 2019
5 2025:KER:94577
3 SUNEETHA BABY DANIEL,
LG HINDI TEACHER,
C/O.CORPORATE MANAGER,
CSI SCHOOLS MALABAR AND WAYANAD,
BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.
BY ADVS.
SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN (FOR R3)
SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEROGE, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26.11.2025, THE COURT ON 08.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.16878 of 2017
& 30905 of 2019
6 2025:KER:94577
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.16878 of 2017 & 30905 of 2019
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above two writ petitions relate to the same issue and
are being heard and disposed of together. W.P.(C)No.16878 of
2017 is treated as the main case, and parties and documents are
referred to as per their status and numbering, respectively, in
the said writ petition (except in the paragraphs covering the
pleadings in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019).
2. The prayer in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017 is for
directions to respondents 3 and 4 to approve the petitioner's
appointment from 4.6.2012 and to pay the salary and other
benefits. The petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Hindi
Teacher on 01.06.2008 against the leave vacancy of Smt. Merlin
Shobhana John at BEM UP School, Ponnani. The appointment
was not approved, owing to objections raised by Smt. Sheema
Sujayakumari, Sri Danish Raphel and Smt. Nisha Janet, three
Non-Teaching Staff under the Corporate Manager. As per
& 30905 of 2019
7 2025:KER:94577
Ext.R10(d), the petitioner's appointment against the leave
vacancy of Smt.Merlin Shobhana John was cancelled, and she
was appointed to the regular vacancy of Part-Time Hindi Teacher,
which arose on 01.06.2009 in CMS UP School, Nedinkaruna.
Sri Danish Raphel's claim for the leave vacancy of Smt.Merlin
Shobhana John was accepted, and he was appointed with effect
from 01.06.2008. To get approval of her appointment, the
petitioner approached the 1st respondent with a revision petition
on 02.02.2012. By order in WP (C) No.9517 of 2012, this Court
directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the
revision petition and to maintain the status quo with respect to
the appointment of the petitioner till the disposal of the revision
petition. While so, Smt.Merlin Shobhana John cancelled her leave
and rejoined duty, and the petitioner was retrenched from
service. The 1st respondent disposed of the revision petition filed
by the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 order dated 16.11.2012 (Ext.P8
in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019). This was followed by Ext.P2 order
dated 21.12.2012, issued by the Corporate Manager, treating the
petitioner's appointment as continuous from 01.06.2009, without
an ouster on 04.06.2012, despite the rejoining of Smt. Merlin
Shobhana John. Based on Ext.P2, she was treated as the
& 30905 of 2019
8 2025:KER:94577
seniormost teacher and was promoted and appointed as a Full-
Time Hindi Teacher in the available vacancy at BEM UP School,
Feroke. The period of absence from 04.06.2012 to the date of
joining was directed to be treated as eligible leave. The
petitioner claims that the copy of Ext.P2 order was served on the
10th respondent (1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019). The
petitioner thereafter joined BEM UP School, Feroke, on
07.01.2013. While so, Sri Danish Raphel filed W.P.(C)No.1036 of
2013 claiming promotion to the post of Part Time Hindi Teacher
with effect from 02.06.2008.
3. During the staff fixation for 2014-15, there was a
division fall, resulting in the abolition of the post of Full Time
Hindi Teacher at BEM UP School, Feroke, as evidenced by Ext.P4
order dated 14.07.2014. The Joint Director of General Education
issued Ext.P5 order on 12.12.2014, approving the appointments
of Sri Danish Raphel and the petitioner, with effect from
02.06.2008 and 01.06.2009, respectively. W.P.(C)No.1036 of
2013 was closed based on Ext.P5. By Ext.P7 order, the 4 th
respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner, with
effect from 01.06.2009, at CMS UP School, Nedinkaruna. The
& 30905 of 2019
9 2025:KER:94577
petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the AEO,
Feroke, seeking revision of Ext.P4 staff fixation order and
restoration of the abolished post of Full Time Hindi Teacher. By
Ext. P9 order, this Court directed the AEO, Feroke, to consider
and pass orders on Ext.P8. By Ext.P10 order dated 2.7.2016, the
AEO, Feroke considered the fact that the petitioner's
appointment was not approved owing to the non-availability of a
post, and directed the Corporate Manager to retain the lien of
the petitioner in Aaron UP School, Pappinisseri, in the post held
by the 10th respondent. The Corporate Manager issued Ext.P11
order on 8.8.2016, transferring the petitioner to Aaron UP School
by retaining her lien in the said school retrospectively from
4.6.2012. Thereafter, the Corporate Manager issued Ext.P12
order on 20.1.2017, in partial modification of Ext.P11 order,
shifting the lien of the petitioner from Aaron UP School to BEM
UP School, Anjarakandy, against the vacancy of Smt. Nisha
Jannet, who was reverted as FTM with effect from 04.06.2012.
The petitioner was directed to avail LWA for the period from
05.06.2012 to 23.07.2102, and Smt.Nisha Jannet was again
promoted to that vacancy. The petitioner contends that all the
above arrangements were being made to benefit the 6 th
& 30905 of 2019
10 2025:KER:94577
respondent, who had been appointed as Junior Hindi Teacher
(Part Time) in the vacancy that arose on the termination of the
petitioner's service with effect from 4.6.2012, despite there
being an order of status quo issued by this Court. The writ
petition was filed in the above circumstances seeking a direction
to the respondents 3 and 4 to approve the petitioner's
appointment from 4.6.2012 and pay the salary from that date.
4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating
that the request for shifting the lien had been rejected by the 4 th
respondent since the 6th respondent was working at BEM UP
School, Anjarakandy from 5.6.2012 to 23.7.2012, and there was
hence no vacancy available to which the lien could be shifted. It
is stated that in the letter dated 23.2.2017 issued by the
Corporate Manager to the AEO Mattannur, that the 10 th
respondent will have to be shifted to the leave vacancy for the
period from 26.7.2012 to 4.1.2013 and reverted to the post of
Peon from 5.1.2013 to 28.7.2013, for the purpose of retaining
the lien of the petitioner in Aaron UP School, Pappinissery. The
letter also says that the 10th respondent had relinquished the
promotion on 1.6.2015. It is also stated that objections were
& 30905 of 2019
11 2025:KER:94577
filed by the 6th respondent to the shifting of the lien of the
petitioner.
5. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit
contending that the 6th respondent and the 10th respondent were
qualified for promotion to the post of Junior Hindi teacher during
2008-2009. It is stated that posts of Part Time Junior Hindi
teacher were available in 7 schools under the Corporate
Management situated in Puthiyara, Ottapala, Nedumkarana,
Pappinisseri, Kuthuparamba, Anjarakandy and Bilathikulam and
that apart from the 6th and 10th respondents, Sri Danish Raphel,
who was senior to them and working as a Peon, was also
qualified for promotion to the post. It is stated that the 6 th
respondent became qualified from 3.8.2007. The 6 th respondent
had challenged the proposal for approval of the petitioner, and
by Ext.R6(c) judgment in W.P.(C)No.26018 of 2009, this Court
had directed the objections of the 6 th respondent to be
considered before issuing orders regarding approval of the
appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was
relieved from Pappinissery when Sri Danish Raphel joined there
on 4.6.2012, that Sri Danish Raphel was transferred to
& 30905 of 2019
12 2025:KER:94577
Puthiyara, and that the 10th respondent was posted in the
vacancy at Pappinissery. According to the 6 th respondent, the
petitioner had never worked in a sanctioned post of Junior Hindi
Teacher and hence was not entitled to claim approval. It is
further stated that Ext.P3 produced by the petitioner is a joining
report issued by the Headmistress, and it is not supported by
any order of transfer issued by the Corporate Manager. It is
alleged that the petitioner continued in Feroke school, where
there was no sanctioned post, in collusion with the
Headmistress. It is also stated that the Corporate Manager had
issued an order shifting the lien of the petitioner, affecting the
appointment of the 6th respondent for the period from 5.6.2012
to 23.7.2012 and directed her to refund the excess salary paid
to her. A copy of the order has been produced as Ext.R6(g). It is
stated that the said order has been challenged before the
educational authorities.
6. The 10th respondent has filed a counter affidavit
containing statements like those in the counter affidavit filed by
the 6th respondent. It is stated that he entered service as FTM on
23.8.2005, was promoted as Peon with effect from 1.6.2011,
& 30905 of 2019
13 2025:KER:94577
was promoted as Part-time Hindi Teacher as per proceedings
dated 12.7.2012 of the 5th respondent and posted in Aaron UP
School, Pappinissery. It is stated that the initial appointment of
the petitioner as Part-Time Hindi Teacher on 4.9.2006 at CMS
High School, Arappatta and thereafter in a leave vacancy for the
period from 16.10.2007 to 17.12.2007 at BEM UP School,
Puthiyara were not approved till the date of filing the counter
affidavit. It is stated that the subsequent appointment of the
petitioner was also found to be bad as per the letter issued by
the Government, and the petitioner was terminated on the
appointment of Sri Danish Raphel, who was found entitled to be
appointed during the said period. It is stated that the 5 th
respondent had appointed the petitioner based on a wrong
declaration that there were no senior qualified claimants. It is
contended that the Ext.P1 order was issued without notice to the
10th respondent and on the ground that the 6 th respondent had
relinquished her claim for promotion for the period from
31.5.2008 to 31.12.2010. Ext.R10(i), produced along with the
counter affidavit, is the Revision petition filed against the Ext.P1
order on 23.04.2017.
& 30905 of 2019
14 2025:KER:94577
7. During the staff fixation for the year 2018-19, the
post of Part-Time Junior Hindi Teacher was made a Full-Time
post. On 06.06.2019, the Corporate Manager issued Ext.P15
order promoting the petitioner as Full Time Hindi Teacher at
Aaron UP School, Pappinissery, with effect from 15.07.2018. On
30.07.2019, this Court, by an interim order in the writ petition,
directed the Corporate Manager to furnish a proposal to the
concerned AEO regarding the transfer/appointment of the
petitioner as Junior Hindi Teacher for the period from 24.7.2012.
The AEO was also directed to pass orders regarding the
approval. The Corporate Manager issued orders on 16.08.2019,
appointing the petitioner in Aaron UP School with effect from
24.7.2012, from which date, the 10 th respondent is stated to
have been transferred to CMS UP School, Nedumkaruna. The
AEO, Pappinissery issued Ext.P19 order on 29.08.2019,
approving the petitioner's appointment in Aaron UP School, with
effect from 11.08.2016. The salary with effect from 11.08.2016
has been disbursed to the petitioner in the pre-revised scale.
According to the 10th respondent, the Corporate Manager has
submitted a wrong declaration that there are no claimants who
will be affected by the appointment of the petitioner.
& 30905 of 2019
15 2025:KER:94577
8. The 10th respondent challenged the interim order
dated 30.07.2019, in W.A.675 of 2020, which was disposed of,
permitting him to get impleaded in the writ petition as an
additional respondent and contest the claim, and, by observing
that any approval granted to the petitioner shall be treated as
provisional and subject to the final result of the writ petition. He
was thereafter impleaded as an additional respondent in this writ
petition.
9. The petitioner submits that the appointment for the
period from 04.06.2012 to 10.08.2016 is pending approval. It is
submitted that only if the proposal submitted by the Manager,
for shifting the lien of the petitioner from 04.06.2012 to
23.07.2012 to BEM UP School Anjarakandy, against the vacancy
of the 6th respondent is approved, the lien of the 10 th respondent
is shifted to the leave vacancy for the period from 26.07.2012 to
04.01.2013, and he is reverted from 05.01.2013 to 27.07.2013,
to the post of Peon, the petitioner's appointment for the period
from 4.6.2012 to 11.8.2016 can be approved. Pending the writ
petition, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on
31.03.2024. It is submitted that unless the appointment is
& 30905 of 2019
16 2025:KER:94577
approved, she will not be able to draw pay and allowances in the
revised scale, and her pensionary benefits will also be affected
adversely.
10.It is contended that even on merits, going by Exhibits
P21 and P22 judgments and G.O (Ms.) 275/99/G.Edn dated
09.11.1999, and Note 1 to Rule 1, Chapter XIV A of KER, the
10th respondent cannot have any claim over and above the
petitioner for the appointment to the regular vacancy which
arose on 01.06.2009, since the right of the petitioner will arise
only in the absence of a qualified teacher. It is submitted that on
the date when the regular vacancy arose, the petitioner was the
qualified teacher available.
WP(C) No. 30905 OF 2019
11. The writ petition has been filed seeking directions to
the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 revision
petition filed on 23.4.2017, after hearing the petitioners,
respondents 2 and 3 and such other affected parties. The 1 st
petitioner has been impleaded as the additional 10 th respondent
in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017. The service details of the 1 st
petitioner have already been stated in previous paragraphs,
& 30905 of 2019
17 2025:KER:94577
while stating the facts of the connected case and are not hence
repeated. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as FTM with effect
from 12.11.2007, and the appointment was approved by the
educational authority. The 2nd petitioner was later promoted as a
peon and posted at Aaron UP School, Pappinissery, with effect
from 01.08.2012. He was later promoted as Junior Hindi Teacher
(PT) with effect from 29.07.2013 at BEM UP School,
Kuthuparamba, in the vacancy of Smt. Leel Jain Manuel, who
was transferred to BEM UP School, Bilathikulam. The above facts
are evidenced by Exts.P4 to P6 orders. The petitioners claim that
they are qualified for appointments as Hindi teachers from the
date of their initial appointment as FTMs and are hence entitled
to appointment as teachers as and when a vacancy arises by
virtue of Note 1 of Rule 1 of Chapter XIV A KER.
12. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017. Ext.P9 revision has been
preferred against Ext.P8 order dated 16.11.2012, which has
been produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017. According
to the petitioners, the approval of the appointment of the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017 will depend on the
& 30905 of 2019
18 2025:KER:94577
decision in Ext.P9 revision petition. The petitioners submit that
they came to know of Ext.P8 order (GO(Rt)
No.5454/2012/G.Edn dated 16.11.2012) only much after it was
issued. The petitioners contend that the approval granted to the
3rd respondent on a regular basis from 01.06.2009 as a Hindi
teacher was overlooking the claim of the 1 st petitioner, who was
qualified for promotion, that the finding in Ext. P8 order that
Smt.Nisha Jannet had relinquished her claim was without
hearing any of the affected parties, and that the finding entered
by the 1st respondent is incorrect and illegal. The writ petition
was filed originally, praying for directions to the 1st respondent to
consider and pass orders on Ext.P9. Later, I.A.1 of 2023 has
been filed seeking amendment of the writ petition by adding a
prayer to quash Ext.P8 order.
13. The 1st respondent has filed a statement as directed
by this Court. It is admitted that the 1st petitioner was not heard
while issuing G.O(Rt.) No.5452/2012/G.Edn. Dated 16.01.2012.
It is also admitted that the 1st petitioner had submitted a petition
before the 1st respondent on 04.04.2017 stating that Ext.P8
order was issued without hearing him. It is stated that the said
& 30905 of 2019
19 2025:KER:94577
petition is still under consideration of the Government and that a
detailed report had been called for from the Director of General
Education, and on 01.04.2023, the Director of General Education
submitted a report. It is stated that, as per the report, detailed
clarifications are necessary to decide. It is further stated that by
a letter dated 20.04.2023, the Director of General Education was
directed to furnish a detailed report, but the same has not yet
been received.
14. Regarding the facts, it is stated that the 1 st petitioner
was appointed as FTM on 23.08.2005, that he was promoted as
Office Attendant with effect from 01.06.2011, and that he
passed Hindi Bhooshan from Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha in
August 2008. It is stated that the 1st petitioner has claimed that
he was entitled to appointment as a teacher as and when a
vacancy arose, by virtue of Note 1 of Rule 1 of Chapter XIV A
KER, that he was promoted and appointed as Part Time Lower
Grade Hindi Teacher via proceedings dated 12.07.2012, and that
he joined duty on 26.07.2012. It is stated that, in the petition
filed on 23.04.2017, though he has claimed that he is eligible to
be promoted as Hindi teacher from 20.11.2008, on the
& 30905 of 2019
20 2025:KER:94577
acquisition of the necessary qualification, he did not raise any
claim for the vacancy of 2009. It is stated that he had not raised
any objections to the appointment of Smt.Suneetha Baby Daniel
in the leave vacancy from 02.06.2008 to 31.05.2013, and that,
as per the report of the DGE, objections were filed by Smt.Nisha
Jannet, Smt. Sheema Jayakumar and Sri. Danish Raphel, Office
Attendant, B.E.M. U.P. School. It is also stated that the DGE has
reported that since Smt. Suneetha Baby Daniel was appointed to
the leave vacancy from 02.06.2008, and since the 1 st petitioner
had qualified for the post of Part Time Hindi teacher only in
August 2008, he could not have raised a claim for the post then.
15. Heard Sri R.K.Muralidharan, on behalf of the
petitioners in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019 and for respondents 6
and 10 in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017, Smt. Rekha Vasudevan on
behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017 and for the
3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019, Sri Rajeev Jyothish
George, Government Pleader for the official respondents/State
and Sri V.A.Muhammed, for the 2nd respondent in W.P.
(C)No.30905 of 2019 and for the 5th respondent in W.P.
(C)No.16878 of 2017.
& 30905 of 2019
21 2025:KER:94577
CONSIDERATION:-
16. Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017, argued that the revision petition filed
by the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019 is not
maintainable. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Full Bench
of this Hon'ble Court in Anilkumar P. v State of Kerala & Ors.
[2009 (3) KHC 596], wherein, the power of the Government to
review an order passed under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA KER was
considered and it was held that the Government has no power to
entertain a review petition under Rule 93 against an order
passed in revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA KER. It is also
contended that the claim of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30905 of
2019 is hit by delay and latches and the "Sit Back" Theory.
Referring to the counter affidavit of the 4 th respondent, it is
submitted that the 1st petitioner had relinquished his claim for
promotion to the post of Junior Hindi Teacher in the vacancy
which arose on 01.06.2015. It is submitted that it is evident
from Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017, that he was aware of
the issuance of Ext.P8 Government order in favour of the
petitioner, and he did not raise any grievance at the said point of
& 30905 of 2019
22 2025:KER:94577
time. It is submitted that the grievance was raised only as per
Ext.P9 revision produced in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019, pursuant
to the proposal submitted by the Manager, referred to in the
counter affidavit of the 4th respondent. The Counsel relies on
the dictums of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bichitrananda
Behera v State of Orissa [2023 KHC Online 6907], the Full
Bench decision of this Court in Pavithran VKM & Anr. v State
of Kerala & Ors. [2009 (4) KHC 4], and the decision in
Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1970
KHC 379]. It is submitted that I.A.1 of 2023 filed for
amendment of W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019, in effect changes the
nature of the writ petition and cannot be allowed. Reliance is
placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian
Hotels (North) Ltd. v Alok Kumar Lodha & Ors. [2022 KHC
6699], Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs
Narayanaswamy and Sons & Ors. [2009 (10) SCC 84] and
Chander Kanta Bansal v Rajinder Singh Anand (2008 (5)
SCC 117].
17. From the facts and contentions narrated above, the
following questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions.
& 30905 of 2019
23 2025:KER:94577
(i) Whether Ext.P8 order produced in W.P.
(C)No.30905 of 2019 (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.
16878 of 2017) is liable to be set aside?
(ii) Whether a challenge to Ext.P8 can be raised 5
years after the issuance of the order.
(iii) Whether there can be a direction to
implement Ext.P8 produced in W.P.
(C)No.30905 of 2019 overlooking the
pendency of Ext.P9 petition filed by the 1st
petitioner before the Government.
18. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the
challenge to Ext.P8 is hit by delay and laches, and the sit back
theory. In Anilkumar (supra), a Full Bench of this Court
considered the question whether the Government has the power
to review an order which has been passed under Rule 92 of
Chapter XIVA KER. In the case before the Full Bench, the
Government had entertained a review petition under Rule 93 of
Chapter XIVA KER against an order which was passed in revision
under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA KER. The Court found that there
is no power available to the Government to entertain a review
petition under Rule 93 against an order passed in revision under
Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA. The contention of the counsel for the
petitioner is that Ext.P9, insofar as it seeks review of an order
& 30905 of 2019
24 2025:KER:94577
passed under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA, is not maintainable and
hence no directions can be issued to the Government to consider
Ext.P9.
19. In Bichitrananda Behera (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the question of delay and laches in
approaching the Court in the service matters. The Court held
that normally, a writ petition raising a belated service-related
claim will be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches and on
the grounds of limitation if the remedy is sought by way of an
application before the Administrative Tribunal. The Court held
that one of the exceptions to the said Rule is a case relating to a
continuing wrong. The Court held that relief can be granted in
the case of continuing wrong if the continuing wrong creates a
continuing source of injury. The Court also held that if the
grievances in respect of any order related to or affected several
others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the
settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be
entertained. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
challenge was made more than 12 years after the impugned
order. In paragraph 21 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
& 30905 of 2019
25 2025:KER:94577
Union of India & Ors.v. Tarsem Singh & Anr. (2008 (8)
SCC 648), Union of India V. N.Murugesan (2022 (2) SCC
25), Chairman, State Bank of India V. M.J. James (2022
(2) SCC 301), and other cases on the issue relating to delay
and laches and acquiescence. There can be no quarrel regarding
the proposition of law stated in the above decisions. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the said judgment, held that the
question whether relief should be denied on the grounds of delay
or laches would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and what is the reasonable time cannot be put in a
straitjacket formula or judicially codified in the form of days. In
Pavithran (supra) a Full Bench of this Court held thus:
"9. Whenever an adverse order is passed against a
person, unless the same is challenged before the
appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the
said order will become final and the person, affected
by it, will also be bound by it. It is a well settled
principle in Administrative Law that, there are no void
orders in absolute sense in administrative matters.
There are only voidable orders. Unless a person
aggrieved takes recourse to the appropriate remedy at
the appropriate time, even an illegal order will be
treated as valid and binding. See the observations of
Wade in Administrative Law, 6th Edn.
& 30905 of 2019
26 2025:KER:94577
"The truth of the matter is that the court
will invalidate an order only if the right
remedy is sought by the right person in
the right proceedings and circumstances.
The order may be hypothetically a nullity,
but the court may refuse to quash it
because of the plaintiffs lack of standing,
because he does not deserve a
discretionary remedy, because he has
waived his rights, or for some other legal
reason. In any such case the 'void' order
remains effective and is, in reality, valid. It
follows that an order may be void for one
purpose and valid for another, and that it
may be void against one person but valid
against another. A common case where an
order, however void, becomes valid is
where a statutory time limit expires after
which its validity cannot be questioned.
The statute does not say that the void
order shall be valid; but by cutting off
legal remedies it produces that result:"
The above statement of law has been quoted with
approval by the Apex Court in several decisions, and
one of them is State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh (1992
(1) KLT SN 28 (C. No. 37) SC : (1991) 4 SCC 1). We
notice that Exts. P2 and P3 orders were passed by
competent statutory authorities. They could have
granted the reliefs sought by the sixth respondent, but,
they have declined to do that. The sixth respondent
& 30905 of 2019
27 2025:KER:94577
has not chosen to challenge those orders before the
higher forum or this Court and as mentioned earlier, he
allowed them to become final. Therefore, those orders
are to be treated as valid. They cannot be ignored or
treated as void ab initio and therefore, of no effect
now. It is a well settled principle in service
jurisprudence that, a person who enjoyed a seniority
position for quite some time is entitled to sitback. The
seniority position shall not, normally, be disturbed
lightly. The said position is covered by several decisions
of this Court and also the Apex Court, cited by the
learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in the
interest of administration or public interest to allow a
person, who slept over his right, to rake up a stale
claim, tinker with the seniority list and demoralise
other members of the service. We find no reason not to
apply the above principle applicable to members of
public service, to the persons working in aided schools
governed by the K.E.R., also. There cannot be any
separate principle for such schools concerning seniority,
sit back, etc. In view of the above position, we are of
the view that Ext. R6(a) judgment does not lay down
the correct legal position. We overrule the said
decision. We uphold the view taken by the Division
Bench in Usha Devi's case (supra), as laying down the
correct legal position."
20. On facts, in the case before the Full Bench, an
approved seniority list was sought to be challenged after the
lapse of 10 years. In Raveendranath (supra), a Constitution
& 30905 of 2019
28 2025:KER:94577
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of
delay in filing a petition under Article 32 against the Income Tax
Service Seniority Rules, 1952. The Court held that the challenge
to the 1952 Seniority Rules must fail on the ground of delay
since a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was
filed about 15 years after the Rules were promulgated and given
effect to and no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay
had also been given in the petition. In the case on hand, the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019 cannot be non-suited on
the ground of delay. It is an admitted case that while issuing
Ext.P8 order, neither the petitioner nor any other affected parties
had been heard. It is also an admitted case that the Manager
was not present at the hearing. The only person other than the
educational authorities who was heard was the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.16878 of 2017. It is also an admitted case that Ext.P8
will necessarily affect the rights of persons like the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019. Hence, it is evident that Ext.P8 is bad
since it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural
justice. It is also an admitted fact that other litigations were
pending regarding the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.16878 of 2017, and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16878 of
& 30905 of 2019
29 2025:KER:94577
2017 had sought for implementation of Ext.P8 only 5 years after
the order was issued. The said writ petition was filed only on
16.05.2017, by which time, Ext.P9 petition had already been
filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019, seeking
reconsideration of the issue on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice. Hence, unlike the cases before the
Supreme Court and the Full Benches of this Court, it is not a
case where the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019 seeks to
unsettle a settled seniority position. The principles of the sit
back theory will not apply in the case at hand.
21. Another contention raised was that IA No.1 of 2023,
seeking to amend the writ petition, would in effect change the
nature of the writ petition and cannot be allowed. Chander
Kanta Bansal (supra) was a case arising from a civil
proceeding, and the issue was regarding the amendment of
pleadings. Relief was denied on the grounds of delay as well as
on the ground that the condition of due diligence prescribed in
the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI was not satisfied. The
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply to cases
arising under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and at
best, all that can be said is that the principles can be followed as
& 30905 of 2019
30 2025:KER:94577
a guideline. In Revajeetu Builders (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering the effect of Rules 17 and 35 of
Order VI regarding the grant or refusal of amendments. The
Court said that though it has wide discretion in the matter of
permitting amendment of pleadings, its powers must be
exercised judiciously and with great care. The Court said that
while deciding applications, the Courts must not refuse bonafide,
legitimate, honest and necessary amendments. Asian Hotel
(supra) was also a case arising from a civil proceeding, and the
Court was considering the effect of Rule 17 of Order VI and Rule
10 of CPC for the amendment of the suit.
22. In the case at hand, the application for amendment
was to raise a challenge to Ext.P8 while there was already an
existing prayer for consideration of the Ext.P9 application
seeking review of Ext.P8. As such, it cannot be stated to be a
totally new contention, changing the nature of litigation. If the
original prayer in the writ petition is allowed, it would necessarily
have the effect of setting aside Ext.P8. As such, the contention
that the amendment cannot be allowed is not sustainable.
23. As already observed, Ext.P8 was issued pursuant to
the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.
& 30905 of 2019
31 2025:KER:94577
(C)No.9517 of 2012. This Court had only directed the revision
petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017 to be
considered and decided after hearing the petitioner and the
Manager within a period of 5 months. The mere fact that this
Court directed the hearing of the Manager and the petitioner
does not mean that the affected parties should not be heard. A
reading of Ext.P8 itself would show that several other persons
will be affected by the order. The names of such Teachers are
also mentioned in order. Even the name of the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.30905 of 2019 is mentioned. It is hence evident that the
order was issued without notice to any of such persons who are
likely to be affected by the decision. It is in the above
circumstances that Ext.P9 has been preferred by the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019. Ext.P9 would clearly show that not
only the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019 but also 3 other
persons, who were appointed thereafter, would be affected by
the directions contained in Ext.P8.
24. In the above circumstances, the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.30905 of 2019 is entitled to the relief prayed for. W.P.
(C)No.30905 of 2019 is allowed in part. There will be a direction
to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9
& 30905 of 2019
32 2025:KER:94577
revision petition filed in the said writ petition, on merits, after
hearing the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019, the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017, respondents 5 to 10 in
W.P.(C)No. 16878 of 2017 and such other interested persons at
the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of the above
directions, the prayer in W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017 cannot be
granted at present. The operation of Ext.P1 order produced in
W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019)
shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of Ext.P9 as directed
above. However, if the revision petition Ext.P9 produced along
with W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019 is rejected by the 1 st respondent,
the respondents shall give effect to Ext.P1 order produced in
W.P.(C)No.16878 of 2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.30905 of 2019).
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
Pn/dsn
& 30905 of 2019
33 2025:KER:94577
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 16878 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2012
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER OF
BEM UPS, FEROKE, FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2014-
15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2014.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
1036/2013 DATED 24.2.2015.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER AS PART TIME HINDI TEACHER W.E.F
01.6.2009.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.4.2016.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.5.2016 IN
WPC 18293/2016.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPIES OF THE ORDERS DATED 02.7.2016
ISSUED BY THE AEO, FEROKE.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.8.2016
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.1.2017
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDER
DATED 5/6/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CM/CSI/50/19(2)
DATED 6/6/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF HER
RIGHT FOR PROMOTION FOR THE PERIOD FROM
31.5.2008 TO 31.12.2010
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
1.6.2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
MANAGER
& 30905 of 2019
34 2025:KER:94577
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
10.1.2011 ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE
CORPORATE MANAGER
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO C/1667/2019 DATED
29.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2013 IN
W.A. 926/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT AS
UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2016 IN
W.A. 2177/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT AS
UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
EXIHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/2638/2020/A.T.
DATED 07.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION.
EXTS.PRODUCED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-R6(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF FTM
PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 01.01.1999 TO 31.12.2008.
EXHIBIT-R6(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.02.2017
RECEIVED FROM THE AEO PONNANI UNDER RTI
ACT.
EXHIBIT-R6(C): A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
26018/2009 DATED 16.09.2009.
EXHIBIT-R6(D): A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-R6(E): A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-R6(F): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2012 OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT CORPORATE MANAGER.
EXHIBIT-R6(G): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2017.
*EXTS.PRODUCED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT.
EXTS.PRODUCED AS EXTS.R7(A) TO R7(Q) ARE CORRECTED AS EXTS.R10(A) TO
R10(Q) as per order dated 26.11.2025 in WP(C)No.16878/2017)
EXHIBIT-R7(A)
Corrected as
Ext.R10(A)] : A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF FTM
& 30905 of 2019
35 2025:KER:94577
PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 01.01.1999 TO 31.12.2008.
EXHIBIT-R7(B)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(B)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 7TH
RESPONDENT DATED 23.08.2005.
EXHIBIT-R7(C)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(B)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2012.
EXHIBIT-R7(D)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(D)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2009
OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R7(E)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(E)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.03.2020
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT-R7(F)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(F)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2020
ISSUED BY AEO, PONNANI
EXHIBIT-R7(G)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(G)]: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01.06.2009.
EXHIBIT-R7(H)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(H)]: TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2009.
EXHIBIT-R7(I)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(I)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 23.04.2017.
EXHIBIT-R7(J)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(J)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2012.
& 30905 of 2019
36 2025:KER:94577
EXHIBIT-R7(K)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(K)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2016.
EXHIBIT-R7(L)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(L)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN
FORM 27 DATED 16.08.2019.
EXHIBIT-R7(M)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(M)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.08.2019 ALONG
WITH EXT. R9(I).
EXHIBIT-R7(N)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(N)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.
675/2020 DATED 16.06.2020.
EXHIBIT-R7(O)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(O)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
HM TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R7(P)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(P)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED
01.06.2016 OF THE TEACHER.
EXHIBIT-R7(Q)
[Corrected as
Ext.R10(Q)]: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.02.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
& 30905 of 2019
37 2025:KER:94577
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 30905 OF 2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
23/08/2005 AND THE ORDER OF APPROVAL.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01/06/2011 AND THE ORDER OF APPROVAL.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 12/07/2012.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
12/11/2007.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01/08/2012 AND THE ORDER OF APPROVAL.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
29/07/2013 AND THE ORDER OF APPROVAL.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 20.11.2008.
EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 21.04.1997.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.
5454/2012/G.EDN. DATED 16/11/2012.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER DATED 23/04/2017.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON
01/01/2009.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT
NO.DGE/17455/2022-E4 DATED 01/04/2023.
ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.SC3/372/2020/GEDN DATED 20/04/2023.
