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/-
