Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Radhika P on 9 September, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA No.1553 of 2024
2025:KER:66405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 1553 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2023 IN WP(C) NO.6748 OF
2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THRISSUR-680 003.
3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
VALAPPAD, TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR-680 567.
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT:
1 RADHIKA P
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O. RAJEESH M.R., JUNIOR SANSKRIT TEACHER (PART
TIME), A.U.P. SCHOOL, TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR-680 567,
RESIDING AT MANKARA HOUSE, CHENTRAPPINNI P.O,
THRISSUR-680 687.
2
WA No.1553 of 2024
2025:KER:66405
2 THE MANAGER
A U P SCHOOL, TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR-680 567.
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD - R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT
ON 9.9.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WA No.1553 of 2024
2025:KER:66405
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C)No.6748 of 2020 filed this
writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
challenging the judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. According to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, she is an
approved Part-time Sanskrit Teacher working in the school of the
2nd respondent viz., A U P School, Triprayar in Thrissur District, in
a regular vacancy with effect from 01.06.2010 by virtue of Ext.P1
appointment order of that date. Contending that Part-time
Language Teachers who have put in more than five years of
service and have eight periods of work shall be made full-time
Teachers by virtue of Ext.P2 Government Order dated 02.05.1973,
the 1st respondent made request for the said benefits. However,
by virtue of Ext.P3 order dated 15.07.2016, the 3 rd appellant
Assistant Educational Officer rejected the request of the 1st
respondent. The appeal preferred by her against Ext.P3 order was
dismissed by the 2nd appellant Deputy Director of Education, by
2025:KER:66405
Ext.P4 order dated 14.12.2017. The 1st respondent then preferred
a revision petition dated 18.07.2018 before the 1 st appellant, and
by the judgment dated 02.08.2018 in W.P.(C)No. 26162 of 2018,
this Court directed the 1st appellant to pass orders in that revision
petition. Pursuant to that direction, the 1st appellant considered
the revision petition and, by Ext.P5 order dated 26.06.2019,
dismissed the same, holding that the only post of Sanskrit Teacher
was abolished during the academic year 2012-2013. Thereafter,
1st respondent/writ petitioner approached this Court with the
present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following reliefs:
"i. to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order
or direction to quash Exts.P3 to P5 orders, since the same
are issued in violation of the provisions of the Kerala
Education Act and Rules.
ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction, directing the respondents to confer all
benefits of Full time Sanskrit teacher to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.06.2015.
iii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
convert the Part-time post of Sanskrit teacher as full time
2025:KER:66405
post of Sanskrit teacher, in the 4th respondent's school w.e.f.
01.06.2015 and accommodate the petitioner in the above
Full time post of Sanskrit teacher.
iv. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction, directing the respondents to treat the
petitioner as Full time Sanskrit teacher w.e.f. 01.06.2015
and disburse all benefits due to the above post".
3. By the judgment dated 21.03.2023, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition. Paragraph 4 and the last
paragraph of that judgment read thus:
"4. According to the petitioner, she completed 5 years of
service as Part Time Sanskrit Teacher on 31.05.2015. The
main reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for full
time benefit is that in the staff fixation order passed in the
year 2016 as per G.O.(P). No.29/2016/G.Edn dated
29.01.2016 it is found that there is no sufficient students to
accommodate the post of Sanskrit Teacher. But this point is
considered by this Court in detail in the judgment dated
28.02.2023 in W.P.(C)No.14723/2021. Admittedly there is
no staff fixation for the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16 and
the Government already ordered to adopt the staff fixation
of the year 2010-11 in the subsequent years also. Based on
the same, the petitioner continued in that post. Admittedly
the petitioner completed 5 years on 31.05.2015. If that be
the case, according to me, the denial of full-time benefit
based on Ext.P2 order is unsustainable especially in the light
2025:KER:66405
of the fact that this Court already considered this point in
the judgment dated 28.02.2023 in W.P.(C). No.14723/2021.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Exts.P3 to P5 are set aside.
2. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled full time
benefit as per Ext.P2 Government Order with effect from
01.06.2015.
3. Consequential orders shall be passed by the 3 rd
respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
two months from the date of receipt of a stamped certified
copy of this judgment.
4. Based on the above order, the consequential benefits also
shall be disbursed to the petitioner within three months from
the date on which the above order is passed".
4. The appellants preferred R.P.No.879 of 2024 before the
learned Single Judge, raising a contention that the appellants
could not bring the fact before the learned Single Judge that the
1st respondent was not regular and she had not even signed the
attendance register, especially during 2015-2016 academic year.
5. By the order dated 30.08.2024, the learned Single
Judge dismissed that review petition. Thereafter, the appellants
preferred the present writ appeal.
6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
2025:KER:66405
learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that
there was no post of Sanskrit Teacher in the school from the
academic year 2012-2013 due to a division fall. The appellants
issued staff fixation orders for all years, except for 2012-2013,
when no staff fixation was carried out in the State. Annexure A1
staff fixation order dated 15.05.2014 for the academic year 2013-
14 shows that the post of Sanskrit Teacher is abolished in the
school in question. This fact is not challenged in the writ petition,
even though Annexure A1 staff fixation order existed at the time
of filing of the writ petition. The learned Senior Government
Pleader would further submit that though the 1 st respondent
relied on several Government Orders, those orders were
subsequently set aside as per the judgment of this Court reported
in Kerala Aided L.P. and U.P. School, Kollam v. State of
Kerala and another [2016 (2) KHC SN 44].
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent would submit that there were no staff fixation orders
during the period 2011-12 to 2015-16. By G.O.(P)
2025:KER:66405
No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.10.2011, the Government has
already ordered that the staff fixation orders of 2010-11 would be
applicable and will be fixed as the sanctioned post in each school
for the academic year 2011-12. By the circular dated 06.06.2012,
the Government has clarified that the staff fixation for 2010-11
will be made applicable to 2012-13 also, till the process of UIDAI
is completed in each school. By the order dated 04.07.2014, the
Government has ordered to continue the post fixed in 2010-11 for
the academic year 2013-14. Therefore, no interference is needed
on the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
9. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has completed more
than five years of service as a Part-time Sanskrit Teacher in the
school managed by the 2nd respondent as on 01.06.2015. The
appellants rejected the claim of the 1st respondent by Ext.P3 to P5
orders. The 1st respondent is claiming that the staff fixation order
of 2010-11 continued based on the subsequent Government and
executive orders. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition based on the judgment of this Court dated 28.02.2023 in
W.P.(C) No.14723 of 2021. It was also found by the learned Single
2025:KER:66405
Judge that there is no staff fixation order from 2011-12 to 2015-
16. But from Annexure A4 judgment dated 11.06.2024 produced
by the appellants along with this writ appeal, we notice that the
judgment in W.P.(C) No.14723 of 2021 was set aside by Annexure
A4 judgment dated 11.06.2024, for the reason that while passing
the judgment in W.P.(C) No.14723 of 2021 the learned Single
Judge did not take into consideration of the staff fixation order
that was originally issued on 14.05.2014. The Division Bench in
the judgment dated 11.06.2024 further held that the staff fixation
order is issued invoking the statutory rule under Chapter XXIII of
the Kerala Education Rules, and the staff fixation order is final
unless such an order is challenged as to the fixation of strength of
Teacher in the school. In the absence of any challenge to the staff
fixation order, continuation of a teacher in a post which is not
existing cannot be legitimised. In view of Annexure A4 judgment
dated 11.06.2024, the impugned judgment relying on the
judgment in W.P.(C)No.14723 of 2021 cannot sustain.
10. Though the 1st respondent relied on various
Government Orders and consequential executive orders
2025:KER:66405
mentioned above to argue that the said staff fixation order of the
years 2010-11 continued till 2015-16, we notice that by the
judgment dated 15.01.2015 in W.P.(C)No.30107 of 2013, a
learned Single Judge of this Court declared that those orders such
as G.O.(P) 199/2011 dated 01.10.2011, G.O.(P) 313/2013 dated
29.11.2013 and G.O.(P) No.3905/2013 G.Edn dated 24.09.2013
are non-est in the eye of law and consequential executive orders
issued in continuation of the Government Orders are quashed. The
said judgment is again taken note of by another learned Single
Judge of this Court in Kerala Aided L.P. and U.P. School [2016
(2) KHC SN 44]. Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot rely on
those Government Orders and executive orders to claim the
benefit of the staff fixation order issued in the year 2010-11. From
Annexure A1 staff fixation order dated 15.05.2014, we notice that
the staff fixation was done in the academic year 2013-14, and it
was based on the said fixation the appellants found that there is
no post from 2012-13 to accommodate the 1st respondent. While
considering all the above facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the 1 st respondent cannot claim the
2025:KER:66405
benefit of five years continuous service as Part-time Sanskrit
Teacher as on 31.05.2015 and that the learned Single Judge failed
to consider these aspects while passing the impugned judgment.
Therefore, the said judgment is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the
judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C)No.6748 of 2020, and the writ petition stands dismissed.
sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2025:KER:66405
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.
D.DIS/B/2512/2013 DATED 15.05.2014
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/07/2024
SENT BY THE PREVIOUS HEAD MISTRESS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT HEREIN.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/07/2024
SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2024
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1712/2023 IN W.P (C ) 14723
OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
