The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking promotion to Principal and seniority revision. The court held that the petitioner failed to challenge the unchallenged government order approving appointments effective from an earlier date than her own for twenty years, barring the current claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:KER:28253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25213 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ANI THOMAS
AGED 56 YEARS
HSST (PHYSICS), PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA
P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 529
BY ADVS.
M.R.ANISON
P.A.RINUSA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 0012 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 0013 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHEGANNUR-689 1214 CHITHRA.S. PRINCIPAL, PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 5295 INDULAKSHMI.R. HSST ( CHEMISTRY), PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 5296THE MANAGER
PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA P.O., NOORANAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 529
BY ADV R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA)
GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 2 -
2025:KER:28253
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025
Above writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P1, P4, P5 and P9 and for a consequential direction to the 6th respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Principal with effect from 01.04.2013, and for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to approve the said appointment with effect from the said date.
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 3 -
2025:KER:28253
As per the said Government order 25% of vacancies of higher secondary school teachers have to be filled up by appointing qualified high school assistants and primary school teachers working in the very same school and remaining 75% vacancies will have to be filled up by direct recruitment. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court and an interim order was passed directing the school managers to fill up the vacancies by appointing qualified candidates working in the high school and upper primary section. Petitioner is fully qualified for appointment as HSST in the 25% quota reserved for high school assistants, and was entitled for appointment as such with effect from 14.08.2000, i.e. the date on which the post of HSST was created in the 6th respondent school.
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 4 -
2025:KER:28253
11.10.2000. The petitioner was all along treated as senior to respondents 4 and 5, and in Ext.P2 seniority list also petitioner was assigned rank No.2, whereas respondent Nos.4 and 5 were ranked as serial Nos. 7 and 5. When the Principal of the 6th respondent school retired from service, the said vacancy was filled by appointing the petitioner as Principal-in-charge, being the senior most teacher working in the higher secondary section. The same was approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education as per Ext.P3. Later the 6th respondent published the seniority list of teachers as of 01.06.2017 and 01.06.2018, whereby assigning rank to the petitioner below respondents 4 and 5 as per Exts.P4 and P5.
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 5 -
2025:KER:28253
challenged the said order of appointment as per Ext.P8 representation which was rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P9. Petitioner relying on Exts.P12 and P11 which are the Government orders in force at the date of occurrence of vacancy submits that the petitioner ought to have been assigned seniority above respondents 4 and 5. It is challenging the order of rejection that the present writ petition has been filed.
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 6 -
2025:KER:28253
continuous service from 04.09.2000, whereas the petitioner has continuous service only from 11.10.2000. It is in the said circumstances that the claim of the petitioner was rejected. It is further submitted that petitioner proceeded on leave from 03.01.2022 to 30.03.2022 and was due to retire in 2022, and the leave was sanctioned as per Ext.R4(a). In the said circumstances, the 4th respondent is discharging the duties of Principal of the school and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 7 -
2025:KER:28253
approval of appointment of the petitioner as Principal-in-charge it is made clear that the same is purely temporary and provisional and the said temporary arrangement is granted only to ensure that the pay and allowance of the staff could be claimed in time. It is specifically mandated in Ext.P3 that the said approval will not make the petitioner entitled to claim for the post of Principal and it is only a temporary and provisional arrangement. Though in Ext.P2 seniority list as on 13.03.2013 the petitioner was assigned seniority over respondents 4 and 5 even though the date of continuous service is after respondents 4 and 5, the seniority list was revised in 2017, wherein respondents 4 and 5 were granted seniority over the petitioner. Though the petitioner relies on Ext.P10 order and Ext.P11 circular, in the circular issued based on interim order passed by the Apex Court, it is mandated that in case of private aided schools if suitable qualified candidates among who existing teachers already working are available in the School they may be appointed purely on ‘Adhoc basis’ as a stop gap arrangement subject to further orders. It was also ordered that if suitable candidates are not available then the teachers may be appointed from the open market also on adhoc basis. Therefore, a perusal of Ext.P11 would show that it is not a blanket order. Admittedly by Ext.P1 order the approval was granted to the petitioner only with effect from
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 8 -
2025:KER:28253
11.10.2000, whereas respondents 4 and 5 were granted approval with effect from 04.09.2000, a date prior to the petitioner. Ext.P1 order which was passed as early as in 2002 was not challenged by the petitioner in any of the proceedings and the same has become final. The petitioner for claiming seniority only based on the position granted to the petitioner in Ext.P2 seniority list of 2013, wherein the petitioner was assigned rank above respondents 4 and 5. Even in Ext.P2 it is stated that the petitioner has continuous service only with effect from 11.10.2000, whereas respondents 4 and 5 were having continuous service from 04.09.2000 onwards. The said anomaly in Ext.P13 seniority list was modified in Ext.P4 seniority list for the year 2017. In Ext.P9 order also the Government has found that the 4th respondent was given approval of appointment with effect from 04.09.2000, whereas the petitioner was granted only with effect from 11.10.2000 and that no objection was raised by the petitioner at any point of time and Ext.P1 order was never challenged.
Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has not challenged Ext.P1 approval of appointment granted to respondents 4 and 5 on a date anterior to the approval of appointment of the petitioner and that Ext.P1 order has become final, I am not inclined
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 9 -
2025:KER:28253
to grant any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE
sbk/-
WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 10 -
2025:KER:28253
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25213/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING
ACD.C3/18605/HSE/2001, DATED 02.07.2002
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST AS ON
30.03.2013 OF 6TH RESPONDENT SCHOOL
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.TRO/7/4701/13/HSE, DATED 17.05.2013
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SENIORITY LIST AS ON 01.06.2017
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SENIORITY LIST AS ON 01.06.2018
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
09.02.2021 IN WPC NO.1438/2019
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
09.02.2021 IN WPC NO.1438/2019
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.04.2021 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO.4654/2021/G.EDN
DATED 16.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.162/98/G.ED DATED
13.05.1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING
NO.ACD.A1/2179/99/HSE, DATED 23.12.1999
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Principal and a seniority list revision favouring her over respondent No. 4 despite unchallenged approval of her appointment starting fro
Whether the lapse of time since the unchallenged appointment approval order prevents the petitioner from challenging her current position.
Whether petitioner's temporary approval as Principal-in-charge grants her automatic entitlement to the substantive post of Principal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prasannakumary v. Director, Higher Secondary EducationReferred¶28
Prasannakumary v. Director, Higher Secondary Education [2006 (1) KLT 356]
ANI THOMAS
STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
CHITHRA.S.
INDULAKSHMI.R.
VIJU ABRAHAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court