Kerala High Court
Balakrishnan Kuttikkattil vs The State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2025
2025:KER:40396
W.P.(C).No.19384 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19384 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
BALAKRISHNAN KUTTIKKATTIL
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KANARAN, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER
(SANSKRIT), RAMAKRISHNA MISSION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KOZHIKODE-18.
BY ADV SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.
4 THE MANAGER
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KOZHIKODE-673 018.
2025:KER:40396
W.P.(C).No.19384 of 2012
2
5 V.M.PADMAKUMARI
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KOZHIKODE-673 018.
6 G.MANOJ KUMAR
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER IN MALAYALAM,
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KOZHIKODE-673 018.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SHRI.ASP.KURUP
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI BRIJESH MOHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40396
W.P.(C).No.19384 of 2012
3
S.MANU, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.19384 of 2012
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Following reliefs are sought in this writ petition:-
(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-1 and
quash the original of the same by the issue of
a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ
order or direction.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ order or direction commanding the 3rd
respondent to approve the appointment of the
Petitioner as Principal forthwith.
(iii) pass such other order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to
grant in the circumstances of the case.
2. Ext.P1, the impugned order is dated 26.6.2012 by
which a revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by
2025:KER:40396
the Government. Dispute is with regard to the appointment of
the 5th respondent as Principal of Ramakrishna Mission Higher
Secondary School with effect from 5.10.2009.
3. Writ petitioner aspired for the post of Principal and
claimed that he was the rightful claimant. However, the 5 th
respondent was appointed and the petitioner approached this
Court in W.P.(C)No.27965/2009. Pursuant to the direction
issued by this Court the 2nd respondent considered the challenge
and rejected the same. Vide proceedings dated 4.3.2010
appointment of the 5th respondent as Principal was approved.
Petitioner submitted revision petition before the Government
and thereafter approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.13174/2010.
This Court directed the Government to consider the revision
petition. The revision petition was allowed directing to cancel
the approval of appointment of the 5th respondent as Principal.
Further directions were also issued by the Government.
4. Fifth respondent and another filed W.P.(C)No.53/2011
aggrieved by the order passed by the Government in the
2025:KER:40396
revision petition of the petitioner. W.P.(C)No.394/2011 was filed
by the petitioner for implementing the Government Order. This
Court disposed of both cases by a common judgment. The
order dated 14.12.2012 of the Government was set aside and
Government was directed to take fresh decision after providing
opportunity of hearing to the rival parties.
5. Thereafter the Government considered the revision
petition again. Opportunity of hearing was provided to all
concerned. Ext.P1 order dated 26.6.2012 was issued rejecting
the challenge made by the petitioner against the appointment of
the 5th respondent as Principal.
6. In the impugned proceedings Government considered
three questions. They are extracted hereunder:-
"(i) Whether Smt.V.M.Padmakumari was
qualified to be appointed as Higher
Secondary School Teacher as on
28.08.2000;
(ii) Whether Smt.V.M.Padmakumari actually
commenced her service as Higher
2025:KER:40396
Secondary School Teacher on 28.08.2000
or on 16.11.2000.
(iii) Whether it is Smt.V.M.Padmakumari or
Shri.Balakrishnan, Kuttikattil is the senior
most Higher Secondary School Teacher for
holding the post of principal."
All the above three points were decided by the Government
against the writ petitioner. Government finally rejected his
revision petition and issued following orders:-
"(i) The enquiry report of Joint Director (Academic)
dated 04.11.2010 forwarded to government as
per his letter No.Acd Sped 4/66446/HSE/2009
dated 18.11.2010 is dismissed as it was
factually incorrect and prepared without giving
due notice to the petitioner and the school
management.
(ii) Smt.V.M.Padmakumari shall be treated as
having commenced her service in the cadre of
HSST from 28.08.2000 onwards and senior to
Shri.Balakrishnan Kuttikattil by virtue of her
2025:KER:40396
total approved teaching service/experience
under the same management.
(iii) The manager of the Ramakrishna Mission
Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode will
prepare the seniority list of HSSTs as per rule
37 of Kerala Education Rules and if
Smt.V.M.Padmakumari is found eligible to be
appointed as principal based on the seniority
list so prepared, she will be allowed to continue
as principal.
(iv) If there is a more qualified teacher by virtue of
his/her total approved teaching service/
experience than Smt.V.M.Padmakumari he/she
shall be appointed as principal and till such
appointment is approved by the Regional
Deputy Director/Director of Higher Secondary
Education, Smt.V.M.Padmakumari shall be
allowed to continue as principal on a temporary
basis.
(v) The Regional Deputy Director Ernakulam will
ensure that the seniority list to be published by
the manager is strictly in consistent with the
provisions of Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A of
Kerala Service Rule 1959."
2025:KER:40396
Petitioner continued his unrelenting pursuit by filing the above
writ petition against the order rejecting his revision petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent and the
learned Government Pleader.
8. The major dispute raised by the petitioner is with
regard to seniority in the post of Higher Secondary School
Teacher. Passing of State Eligibility Test (SET) was an essential
qualification for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary
School Teacher by transfer and by direct appointment. The 5 th
respondent had not passed SET and on the other hand the
petitioner had acquired the said qualification when both of them
were appointed as Higher Secondary School Teachers by
transfer from the category of High School Assistants with effect
from 1.8.2000. One of the grounds on which the petitioner
assails the validity of appointment of the 5th respondent as HSST
is that she had not passed SET at the time of her appointment.
2025:KER:40396
This is refuted by the 5th respondent pointing out G.O.
(Ms)No.341/99/G.Edn. Thiruvananthapuram dated 30th
December 1999. Government granted exemption/relaxation in
the matter of acquiring SET qualification by the said G.O.
Appointments in the Higher Secondary Schools during 1999-
2000 and 2000-2001 were permitted to be made from
candidates having the required educational qualifications subject
to the condition that such candidates should pass SET within a
period of two years from the date of appointment. Later, the
Rules were amended incorporating sub-rule (4) to Rule 10 of
Chapter XXXII of the KER granting exemption to teachers who
have completed 10 years of approved teaching service at High
School level. In view of the Government Order dated
30.12.1999 and provisions of sub-rule (4) to Rule 10 of Chapter
XXXII of the KER, the contention regarding non-eligibility of the
5th respondent for appointment as HSST for want of SET
qualification is only to be rejected.
2025:KER:40396
9. Another serious challenge is with regard to the actual
commencement of service of the 5 th respondent as HSST.
Indisputably the petitioner and the 5 th respondent were
appointed as HSSTs with effect from 28.8.2000. Case of the
petitioner is that despite her appointment as HSST the 5 th
respondent continued to work in the High School Section and
she actually started working as HSST only on 16.11.2000.
Therefore, he contends that in the post of HSST 5 th respondent
is actually junior to him. The Government in Ext.P1 addressed
this issue also. The Manager appointed the petitioner, the 5 th
respondent and three others as HSSTs with effect from
28.8.2000. However as per the observations in Ext P1, which
are not disputed by the petitioner, the Manager issued a memo
whereby the 5th respondent was directed to work for 8 periods in
a week in the HSS section and 24 periods in a week in the High
School section to avoid interruption of studies in the High School
section, in the best interest of students. It is relevant to note in
this regard that the 5th respondent in her counter affidavit has
2025:KER:40396
made a specific statement that the petitioner was also directed
by the Manager to take classes in the High School section and
he had also worked in the High School section as directed by the
Manager. This averment is not disputed by the petitioner by
filing any reply affidavit. A very relevant fact to be taken note
of regarding this contention of the petitioner is that the
appointment of the 5th respondent, the petitioner and two others
was approved by order dated 23.3.2006 issued by the 2 nd
respondent. The said order has been produced as Ext.R5(d) by
the 5th respondent along with her counter affidavit. Name of the
5th respondent is at Serial No.1 in Ext.R5(d). Appointment of all
4 HSSTs was approved with effect from 28.8.2000. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent the said
order of approval issued on 23.2.2006 which undeniably was
within the knowledge of the petitioner was not sought to be
challenged by him at any point of time. In fact the petitioner
raised a dispute only after the 5th respondent was appointed as
Principal in 2010. If the petitioner had any genuine dispute
2025:KER:40396
regarding the date of appointment of the 5th respondent as
HSST nothing prevented him from challenging Ext.R5(d) to the
extent it granted approval to the appointment of the 5 th
respondent with effect from 28.8.2000. The petitioner having
not challenged Ext.R5(d) at any point of time and not raised
any dispute with regard to the actual date of assumption as
HSST by the 5th respondent any time before her appointment as
Principal cannot be permitted to assail her appointment as
Principal on this ground also.
10. It is also pertinent to note that the 5 th respondent
had a total approved service of 21 years 5 months and 13 days
at the time when Ext.P1 was passed by the Government. The
petitioner had only approved service of 16 years 10 months and
17 days. Hence, the 5th respondent had a longer approved
service.
11. Perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the Government
considered all relevant aspects while deciding the revision
petition. Ext.P1 cannot be held as an order passed without
2025:KER:40396
proper application of mind. No irrelevant considerations are
reflected in Ext.P1. It cannot be said that the Government has
violated any specific provision of the relevant Rules or acted
without following the principles of natural justice. The order
impugned contains elaborate discussions. Sufficient reasons are
stated for the conclusions arrived at and directions issued.
Hence, I am of the considered view that there is no scope for
any interference in the matter in exercise of the power of
judicial review. It is also to be noted that the petitioner as well
as the 5th respondent have retired several years ago. Attaining
quietus in the matter is hence desirable.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:40396
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19384/2012
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.2977/2012/G.EDN.
DATED 26.6.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P-2 True copy of the G.O. (Ms.) No.341/99/G.Edn.
dated 30.12.1999 of the Government.
Exhibit P-3 True copy of the G.O. (Ms.) No.
298/2000/G.Edn. dated 25.8.2000 of the
Government.
Exhibit P-4 True copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of
the Staff Selection Committee held on
21.3.2009.
Exhibit P-5 True copy of the Letter of the Manager
addressed to the 3rd Respondent dated
17.4.2009.
Exhibit P-6 True copy of the G.O. (Ms.) No.
389/2000/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2000 of the
Government.
Exhibit P-7 True copy of the Teachers' Attendance
Register of the School.
Exhibit P-8 True copy of the Class Attendance Register
of Standard IX-H.
Exhibit P-9 True copy of the Acquittance Roll of the
School.
Exhibit P-10 True copy of the Appointment Order of
Sri. T.M. Mohanan dated 24.11.2000.
Exhibit P-11 True copy of the Letter of the Manager
dated 25.06.2009.
Exhibit P-12 True copy of the representation submitted by
the 5th Respondent dated 21.4.2009.
Exhibit P-13 True copy of the appointment order of
Smt. K. Sajitha dated 1.9.2000.
Exhibit P-14 True copy of the G.O. (Ms.) No.
261/2001/G.Edn. of the Government
dated 17.8.2001.
Exhibit P-15 True copy of the SET Certificate of the
Petitioner dated 20-8-2000.
Exhibit P-16 True copy of the Report of Enquiry held on
4.11.2010.
Exhibit P-17 True copy of the G.O. (Rt.) No.
5595/2010/G.Edn. of the
Government dated 14.12.2010.
Exhibit P-18 True copy of the Judgment in
W.P. (C) No. 394 of 2011-Y dated 26.7.2011.
