Kerala High Court
Preetha K vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2025
2025:KER:38545
W.P.(C). No.9908 of 2022 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9908 OF 2022
PETITIONER
PREETHA K
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O. SUNIL KUMAR, SNEHATHEERAM HOUSE, VALANCHERRY,
MALAPPURAM-676552, (FORMER UPST, VALANCHERRY HSS,
VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM AND PRESENTLY WORKING AS
PROTECTED TEACHER AT TRK UP SCHOOL, VALANCHERRY,
MALAPPURAM).
BY ADVS.
SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676101.
2025:KER:38545
W.P.(C). No.9908 of 2022 :2:
5 THE MANAGER,
VALANCHERRY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALANCHERRY
P.O., MALAPPURAM-679552.
BY ADV SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
OTHER PRESENT:
GP-RIYAL DEAVSSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38545
W.P.(C). No.9908 of 2022 :3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.9908 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash
Ext.P7 order and a consequential direction to regularise the period
of service of the petitioner upto 16.02.2021 with all service benefits
including approval and salary arrears for the period from
01.07.2014 to 16.02.2021, within a time frame to be fixed by this
Court.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above writ
petition are as follows:
Petitioner had worked as a UPST in the School under the
managership of the 5 th respondent from 13.06.2005 to 16.02.2021.
Originally the petitioner was appointed as UPST in the School under
the managership of the 5th respondent in a LWA vacancy of one
C.Bindu on 13.06.2005. However this appointment was not
approved at that time since the post was abolished. Later, she was
reappointed on 17.06.2006 and the said appointment was approved
2025:KER:38545
upto 30.06.2009. While the petitioner was continuing in the school,
there arose a permanent vacancy consequent to the promotion given
to one V.V.Jyothy and accordingly, the manager appointed the
petitioner to the said vacancy on 15.07.2009. The appointment of
the petitioner to the permanent vacancy was not approved by the
department initially. Later, based on the interference by this Court
in W.P.(C)No.4959/2018 and the consequent Government Order
issued as GO(RT) No.3153/2018/ G.Edn. Dated 17.08.2018, the
Education Authorities were constrained to approve the appointment
of the petitioner with effect from 15.07.2009 in the regular vacancy
as per Ext.P1. Consequent to Ext.P1, the Deputy Director of
Education, Malappuram directed the appointment of the petitioner
from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards to be approved and
accordingly the 3rd respondent ordered to approve her appointment
in the permanent post from the academic year 2010-11 onwards,
with effect from 15.07.2009 as per Ext.P2 order. Based on the same
Ext.P3 consequential order was issued by the District Educational
Officer, Tirur. It is the case of the petitioner that she continued in
service upto 30.06.2014 with approval and salary against an LWA
2025:KER:38545
vacancy. Thereafter she was continuing in the school in the vacancy
of Smt.V.V.Jyothi, who was promoted as HST English. Though the
Government directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner
against an established vacancy of UPST, the 4 th respondent again
rejected the approval on the ground that the appointment of the
promottee, Smt. Jyothi.V.V. is not approved. Aggrieved by the same
the petitioner has preferred an appeal and by Ext.P4 Government
Order a direction was issued to include the petitioner also in the
teacher's package and deploy her in any of the vacancies. Thereafter
the petitioner was deployed as Cluster Coordinator on 17.02.2021
and she is getting salary and other allowances from 17.02.2021
onwards. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the non-
approval of the appointment from 01.07.2014 to 16.02.2021. It is
submitted that the petitioner continued without any interruption
upto 16.02.2021 until she was deployed as Cluster Coordinator
against the vacancy which occurred due to the promotion of Smt.
V.V.Jyothi. But the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram
passed Ext.P5 order, wherein he has opined that the petitioner has
to approach the Government for regularization of break in service.
2025:KER:38545
Therefore, the petitioner approached the Government again raising
her claim, which was rejected by Ext.P7, which is now under
challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner would contend that she
is legally entitled to get her appointment approved from the period
from 01.07.2014 to 16.02.2021 as she was discharging her duties as
UPST in her parent school without any break in service in the
promotion post of Smt.V.V.Jyothi. The petitioner would further
submit that the impediment of non-approval of appointment of
Smt.Jyothi in the promoted post is no longer there, since her
appointment has been approved as per Ext.P10 Order of the District
Educational Officer dated 03.06.2024.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th
respondent DEO, wherein it is admitted that though Government
have issued a direction to approve the appointment of the petitioner
in the promotion vacancy on condition that if the vacancy is
established due to promotion of Smt. V.V.Jyothi, the proposal was
rejected on the reason that the vacancy has not been established
and one post of UPST was abolished in the academic year 2010-11.
As per the orders of the Deputy Director of Education dated
2025:KER:38545
20.09.2019, orders were issued approving the appointment of the
petitioner with effect from 15.07.2009 and the petitioner was
retained in the UPST vacancy in the academic year 2011-12 by
accommodating 1:40 ratio and however there is no vacancy to retain
from the academic year 2012-13 onwards. It is further stated that
the promotion vacancy of Smt.V.V. Jyothi is not approved till date.
4. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed in the promotion
vacancy of Smt.V.V.Jyothi, who was promoted as HST. In Ext.P1
Government Order it is specifically stated that to approve the
appointment of the petitioner, appointment of Smt.V.V.Jyothi, who is
senior to the petitioner in the post of HST is to be approved and
further that her appointment is not approved due to the seniority
dispute with one P.B.Sajith and one Sreekanth R. Menon. Therefore,
a reading of Ext.P1 would reveal that the only reason for the non-
approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the promotion post
of Smt.V.V.Jyothi is her non-approval in the promotion post. Now by
Ext.P10 order, disputes regarding seniority etc., between Smt.
2025:KER:38545
V.V.Jyothi, Sri.P.B.Sajith and Sri. Sreekanth R. Menon has been
concluded and the appointment of Smt.V.V.Jyothi in the promotion
post is also approved.
7. In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that the matter
requires reconsideration by the Government in the light of Ext.P10
Order. Accordingly, Ext.P7 order is set aside. There will be a
consequential direction to the Government to reconsider the claim
of the petitioner, taking into consideration Ext.P10 Order of the
District Educational Officer and also the approval of the
appointment of Smt.V.V.Jyothi in the promotion post of HST. A
decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with
notice to the petitioner, the 5 th respondent and any other affected
parties.
With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2025:KER:38545
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9908/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.8.2018 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM
DATED 20.9.2019.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR DATED
17.12.2019.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
25.1.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM
DATED 16.2.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
12.3.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.3.2022 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2021 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2021 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. DEOTIR/
745/23-B5 DATED 3.6.2024 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4 (a) A true copy of the G.O.(Rt) No.
692/2021/G.Edn. dated,25/01/21
EXHIBIT R4(b) A true copy of the G.O.
(Rt)No.1275/2022/G.Edn. dated, 04/03/2022
