[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Soumini. G vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 1 2025:KER:96834
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 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2380 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.18201
OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.5 IN W.P.(C):
SOUMINI.G,
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O MOHAN.K.R, "KRISHNAPRIYA",
MINALOOR, ATHANI POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT. 683585
BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.P.(C):
1 THE MANAGER,
SREE NARAYANA TEACHERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.
PIN- 679121
2 UNNI.K.P,
HEAD MASTER, SREE NARAYANA TEACHERS' TRAINING
INSTITUTE, CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN- 679121
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
4 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 2 2025:KER:96834
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE.P.O,
THRISSUR-680 003.
6 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHAVAKKAD.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN: 680 506.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP;
SRI. P. C. SASIDHARAN FOR R1 AND R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2025,
THE COURT ON 17.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 3 2025:KER:96834
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 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2381 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2025 IN W.P.(C)NO.12745 OF
2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SOUMINI. G
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. MOHAN K.R., KRISHNAPRIYA, MINALOOR,
ATHANI POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680581
BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, AYANTHOL P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN-680003.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680506.
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 4 2025:KER:96834
5 MANAGER,
SREE NARAYANA TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE (SNTTI),
CHERUTHURUTHY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-679121.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. NSHA BOSE, SR. GP;
SRI. P. C. SASIDHARAN R5
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2025,
THE COURT ON 17.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 5 2025:KER:96834
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 filed
W.A.No.2380 of 2025 and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12745 of
2021 filed W.A.No.2381 of 2025, under Section 5(i) of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958, challenging the common judgment dated
18.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ
petitions. Since the issue involved in these writ appeals is the
same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties and
documents in these writ appeals are referred to as in W.A.No.2381
of 2025 and in the corresponding writ petition, unless otherwise
stated.
2. The facts which led to the filing of these writ appeals
are as under;
2.1. The appellant joined Sree Narayana Teachers Training
Institute, Cheruthuruthy (the 'School' in short) as a Training
School Assistant on 04.06.1990. Since she was convicted in a
criminal case, the Manager of the School dismissed the appellant
from service in terms of Rule 74 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 6 2025:KER:96834
Education Rules, 1959 (the 'KER' in short). Subsequently, the
order of conviction of the appellant was set aside by this Court.
Hence, the Deputy Director of Education passed an order directing
the Manager to reinstate the appellant in service. When the
Manager delayed taking action, stating that the Deputy Director
of Education is not a competent authority to order reinstatement
of the appellant, she approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C)No.8640 of 2008. The Manager also approached this Court
by filing W.P.(C)No.28764 of 2009, challenging the order of the
Deputy Director of Education, contending that the vacancy was
already filled up and hence the appellant cannot be
accommodated. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 20.10.2017, this Court
disposed of both the writ petitions, observing that since the
Manager had made two appointments, the order of the Deputy
Director of Education to reinstate the appellant could be
implemented only by creating a supernumerary post. Ext.P1
judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Ext.P2 judgment dated 06.02.2020, passed in W.A.Nos.1362 and
1068 of 2018.
2.2. Since no steps have been taken by the authorities to
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 7 2025:KER:96834
reinstate her, the appellant filed Con.Case(C)No.1312 of 2020
before this Court. The said contempt case was finally closed as per
Ext.P3 judgment dated 24.11.2020. Thereafter, Ext.P4 order
dated 09.11.2020 was issued by the Secretary, General Education
Department, directing the Director, General Education, to initiate
steps to appoint the appellant by creating a supernumerary post.
In Ext.P4, there was a further direction to make good the resultant
financial liability caused by the creation of the supernumerary
post, by proportionately realising the costs from the Manager and
the officers who approved the appointments of one Unni K. P. and
another person, who was appointed in the vacancy of Unni K. P.,
ignoring the claim of the appellant.
2.3. On the basis of Ext.P4 order, the Director, General
Education issued Ext.P5 order dated 01.03.2021 directing the
District Educational Officer, Chavakkad, reiterating the order of the
Educational Secretary to take immediate steps to create a
supernumerary post of Training School Assistant for reinstating
the appellant from 2000-01. Pursuant to Ext.P5 order, the District
Educational Officer issued Ext.P6 order dated 02.03.2021,
creating a supernumerary post to retain the appellant in the
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 8 2025:KER:96834
service of the School from the year 2000-01. However, the
Manager did not comply with the aforesaid order of the District
Educational Officer. Therefore, the appellant sent Ext.P7 lawyer's
notice dated 09.04.2021 to the Manager, seeking the
implementation of Ext.P6 order of the District Educational Officer.
Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Manager to
implement Ext.P6 order of reinstatement and also seeking a
direction against the District Educational Officer to take action
against the Manager for dereliction of duty and his refusal to abide
by the orders of the statutory authorities as well as the direction
of this Court.
2.4. In W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021, the Deputy Director of
Education filed a counter affidavit dated 15.07.2021, almost
admitting all the pleadings in the writ petition. It is further pleaded
in that counter affidavit that after Ext.P6 order dated 02.03.2021
passed by the District Educational Officer, the Manager filed
W.P.(C)No.2164 of 2021, challenging Ext.P4 order dated
09.11.2020, and in that writ petition, this Court vide order dated
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 9 2025:KER:96834
03.03.2021 directed to keep in abeyance the further proceedings
against the Manager.
2.5. To the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of
Education, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 10.03.2022,
producing therewith Exts.P8 and P9 documents.
3. Meanwhile, the Manager of the School, along with the
Headmaster, filed W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 before this Court. In
that writ petition it is pleaded that after the interim stay granted
by this Court in W.P.(C)No.2164 of 2021 against taking action
against the Manager as directed in Ext.P4 order of the Government
dated 09.11.2020, the Government without any notice and
hearing issued order dated 24.05.2022, which is marked as Ext.P6
in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 holding that there is no provision to
create a supernumerary post in an aided school and that since
there is no post of Training School Assistant available in the School
and the appellant has the qualification of M.A. (Sociology) with
B.Ed, she should be accommodated to the post of Headmistress
of the School reverting the person who was appointed by the
Manager and on failing to do so, the Manager shall be proceeded
against.
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 10 2025:KER:96834
3.1. In W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022, the Manager and the head
Master further contended that the appellant was not in service
right from 03.01.2000. After one year, the 2nd petitioner therein
was appointed as the Headmaster. In Exts.P1 and P2 judgments,
the only direction issued by this Court was to create a
supernumerary post in the cadre of Training School Assistant. The
seniority in the school depends upon the continuous service and
not otherwise. This Court did not interfere with the appointment
of the 2nd petitioner therein as the Headmaster, in Exts.P1 and P2
judgments. Ext.P6 order dated 24.05.2022 produced in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 is issued in violation of the specific
direction in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, and the same was without
hearing the Manager or the Headmaster, and hence it is illegal and
arbitrary. The attempt made in Ext.P6 order dated 24.05.2022
produced in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 is to overreach the direction
in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments and hence unsustainable and illegal.
3.2. The Government has subsequently issued Ext.P7 order
dated 12.01.2023 produced in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 ordering
to revert Shri. Unni K. P., the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18201 of
2022, from the post of Headmaster, and to appoint the appellant
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 11 2025:KER:96834
as the Headmistress in the School.
3.3. The Manager and the Headmaster further contended in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 that it is the duty of the Government to
create a supernumerary post, if they desire to accommodate the
appellant. But no supernumerary post has been created till now.
Further, the 2nd petitioner therein is the senior-most teacher, going
by the staff list, and he was promoted to the post of Headmaster
on 01.04.2000, and the approval process is pending. According to
the Manager and the Headmaster, the appellant was terminated
from service in the year 2000, and she was gainfully employed in
another Teachers Training Institute, i.e., MOTTI, Perimbilavu,
Kunnamkulam, and in the teachers' list submitted by the
institution, the appellant is shown as Principal, and she is actively
working there. Without being in active service, she cannot claim
any seniority, and the principle of reckoning seniority is the
continuous service going by the provisions of KER. The appellant
attained superannuation on 31.10.2022. A supernumerary post
cannot be created to accommodate a person who has attained the
age of superannuation. With these pleadings, the petitioners in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 sought a writ of certiorari to quash
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 12 2025:KER:96834
Ext.P6 order dated 24.05.2022 produced therein; a declaration
that the Government has no power, authority or jurisdiction to
issue Ext.P6 order and it is non est in the eye of law, since it is
issued in total violation of the principles of natural justice and also
in derogation of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments of this Court; and a
declaration that the appellant can be accommodated only if a
supernumerary post is created, that too to the post of Training
School Assistant and that she cannot appoint as a Headmistress
or for that matter, the 2nd petitioner therein is not liable to be
reverted.
3.4. The Government has filed a counter affidavit dated
21.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022, opposing the reliefs
sought therein. Along with I.A.No.4 of 2023, the petitioners
therein have produced Exts.P8 and P9 documents.
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, by the impugned judgment dated
18.06.2025, passed along with W.P.(C)No.2164 of 2021, the
learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions setting aside
Exts.P6 and P7 orders produced in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022. The
learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 and
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 13 2025:KER:96834
further held that the dismissal of the said writ petition will not
stand in the way of the appellant to initiate proceedings to claim
damages from the Government for the loss, if any, caused to her
due to non-implementation of the directions in Exts.P1 and P2
judgments. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ
appeals.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
counsel for the Manager and Headmaster and the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
when Exts.P6 and P7 Government orders in W.P.(C)No.18201 of
2022 are set aside by the learned Single Judge, Ext.P4 produced
in W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 will subsist and the appellant is
entitled for the benefit of the directions issued in that order for
creation of supernumerary post in view of Exts.P1 and P2
judgments of this Court. The learned Single Judge grossly erred
in dismissing W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021, and the learned Single
Judge ought to have directed reinstatement of the appellant
notionally in service with effect from 05.11.2007 and granted all
consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, pension, DCRG
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 14 2025:KER:96834
and commuted value of pension.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Manager
and the Headmaster submitted that Ext.P4 order produced in
W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 is withdrawn by Ext.P6 order in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022, which was further modified by Ext.P7
order produced therein. Though in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments
there was a direction to create a supernumerary post to
accommodate the appellant, the Government had not created any
supernumerary post. The appellant has already attained the age
of superannuation, and hence she cannot be reinstated by creating
a supernumerary post at present. Moreover, she was gainfully
employed in another school, as evident from Exts.P8 and P9
documents in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022. In Exts.P1 and P2
judgments, it is made clear that the rights of the persons already
appointed by the Manager will not be affected by that judgments
and therefore, Exts.P6 and P7 orders produced in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 have no legs to stand.
8. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that the Government has not created a supernumerary post,
though it was directed in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments of this Court.
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 15 2025:KER:96834
Since the Secretary, General Education Department has no right
to create such a post, by Exts.P6 and P7 orders produced in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022, the Government modified previous
orders. While examining to create a supernumerary post to
accommodate the appellant, it was found that there existed a
vacancy since the Headmistress of the school retired on
31.03.2020, and the Manager made the appointment without
considering the claim of the appellant. Therefore, without creating
a supernumerary post, the Government issued a direction to the
Manager to reinstate the appellant in the vacancy of Headmistress
and revised the direction rectifying the factual errors in Ext.P6
order produced in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 by Ext.P7 order. The
learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that it is as
per Note 4 of Rule 56B of Chapter VII of Part I of Kerala Service
Rules, the District Educational Officer issued the order dated
02.03.2021 creating a supernumerary post.
9. We have carefully verified the materials on record and
appreciated the rival arguments addressed at the Bar. By Ext.P1
judgment dated 20.10.2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.8640 of 2008 and
28764 of 2009, this Court directed implementation of the order of
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 16 2025:KER:96834
the Deputy Director of Education to reinstate the appellant by
creating a supernumerary post. The said judgment attained
finality by Ext.P2 judgment dated 06.02.2020 in W.A.Nos.1068 of
2018 and 1362 of 2018. Thereafter, the Secretary, General
Education Department issued Ext.P4 order dated 09.11.2020 to
initiate steps to appoint the appellant by creating a supernumerary
post. It is in pursuance of Ext.P4 order, Ext.P5 order dated
01.03.2021 was issued by the Director of General Education and
a supernumerary post was created by the District Educational
Officer by Ext.P6 order dated 02.03.2021. When Exts.P1 and P2
judgments have attained finality, the Government cannot issue
Exts.P6 and P7 orders dated 24.05.2022 and 12.01.2023,
respectively, produced in W.P.(C) No.18201 of 2022, deviating
from the directions in those judgments. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge is right in setting aside Exts.P6 and P7 orders
produced in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022.
10. It is also gatherable from the materials on record that
while passing Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, this Court refused to
interfere with the appointments already made by the Manager in
view of the fact that at the time of making those appointments,
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 17 2025:KER:96834
the appellant was out of service, being terminated. Moreover, a
reading of Note 4 of Rule 56B of Chapter VII of Part I KSR also
provides creation of such a supernumerary post. The said note
read thus;
"Note 4.- A permanent post vacated by the dismissal, removal,
compulsory retirement or reduction of a Government servant to a
lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale should not
be filled substantively until the expiry of the period of one year
from the date of such dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement
or reduction, as the case may be. Where on the expiry of the
period of one year, the permanent post is filled and the original
incumbent of the post is reinstated thereafter, he should be
accommodated against any post which may be substantively
vacant in the grade to which his previous substantive post,
belonged. If there is no such vacant post, he should be
accommodated against a supernumerary post which should be
created in this grade with proper sanction and with the stipulation
that it would be terminated on the occurrence of the first
substantive vacancy in that grade."
(Underline supplied)
11. The learned Single Judge dismissed the prayer of the
appellant for reinstatement on finding that Ext.P6 order of the
District Educational Officer sought to be implemented was
subsequently modified by Exts.P6 and P7 orders in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022. Moreover, the learned Single Judge
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 18 2025:KER:96834
found that even though this Court by Exts.P1 and P2 judgments
directed the Government to create a supernumerary post to
accommodate the appellant, she has not taken any action for
violation of the orders when the Government failed to create a
supernumerary post to accommodate her. But, when the pleadings
in W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 would show that the appellant had
even filed a Con.Case(C)No.1312 of 2020 before this Court for
violation of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, the learned Single Judge
erred in holding that the appellant did not take any action for
violation of the directions issued by this Court. Having found that
the Government was duty-bound to create a supernumerary post
as directed in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, the learned Single Judge
ought not to have relegated the appellant to a further litigation to
claim damages for the loss, if any, caused to her due to the non-
implementation of the directions in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments.
12. Having considered the entire pleadings and materials
on record, we find that the Government has grossly erred in
passing Exts.P6 and P7 orders produced in W.P.(C)No.18201 of
2022, contrary to the directions in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments
which have attained finality. The Government ought to have
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 19 2025:KER:96834
created a supernumerary post as directed in Exts.P1 and P2
judgments to accommodate the appellant. If such a course had
been adopted in time, the appellant would have worked in the post
entitled to her in the school for a sufficiently lengthy period. The
Manager of the School also contributed to the same by not
appointing the appellant when the post of Headmistress fell
vacant. The facts of the instant case would show that the
respondents have shown gross disregard for the direction of this
Court issued in the interparty dispute in Exts.P1 and P2
judgments.
13. It is true that from Exts.P8 and P9 documents produced
in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022, it can be gathered that the appellant
was employed in some other school while she was out of service.
But the said school, as gatherable from those documents
themselves, is not an aided school. Doing duty in some other
school to make a livelihood cannot be termed as gainful
employment when compared to the benefits that the appellant
would have accrued if Exts.P1 and P2 judgments were promptly
complied with by the authorities concerned. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgment
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 20 2025:KER:96834
passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
In the result, these writ appeals are disposed of by setting
aside the impugned judgment dated 18.06.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.12745 of 2021 and 18201 of
2022 and the writ petitions are disposed of directing the
competent among the respondents to take immediate steps to
reinstate the appellant in service notionally with effect from
05.11.2007 and grant all consequential benefits to her
expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that
the Government is entitled to pass further orders in view of Ext.P4
order dated 09.11.2020 to make good resultant financial liability
by the aforesaid notional reinstatement of the appellant, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
W.A.No.2380 and 2381 of 2025 21 2025:KER:96834
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2004 IN
CRL. REV. PET. NO. 1007/2003 ISSUED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
13.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, ARAFA
ENGLISH SCHOOL, ATTOOR, THRISSUR IN FAVOUR
OF THE APPELLANT
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 13.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, MAR
OSTHATHEOS INSTITUTE OF TEACHER EDUCATION,
PERUMPILAVU, THRISSUR IN FAVOUR OF THE
APPELLANT
