Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1163 (KER)

Sheeja. C v. State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. These two writ petitions are based on common facts and raise common questions of law. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Parties and exhibits in the writ petitions are referred to in this judgment as they are described/marked in W.P.(C) No.32678/2023, for convenience. 2. In W.P.(C) No.32678/2023, the petitioner contends that she is working as HSST Junior (Malayalam) in the School managed by the 4 th respondent. Additional batches were sanctioned in the School in the year 2014. The total number of periods in Malayalam increased to 36 per week from the year 2015-2016 onwards. For 36 periods of Malayalam, one HSST (Malayalam) and one HSST Junior (Malayalam) posts are permissible. However, there was only one HSST (Malayalam) Teacher working then. 3. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed as HSST Junior in Malayalam as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.06.2017. The petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as HSST / HSST Junior in Malayalam. The petitioner's appointment has not been approved and she has not been paid salary and allowances. 4. As per Government Orders, no HSST / HSST Junior post in Malayalam was sanctioned to the petitioner's School. A Guest Teacher post alone was sanctioned. When 36 periods are available per week for the subject Malayalam, the School was entitled to a regular post of HSST Junior. Aggrieved by denial of approval, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.41116/2018. The writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment directing the 1 st respondent to reconsider the matter of approval of the petitioner. The 1 st respondent thereupon passed Ext.P8 order declining the request of the petitioner. In Ext.P8, availability of 36 periods is admitted. The staff fixation of the School for the year 2020-2021 to 2023-2024 is not completed. The petitioner states that the Government has issued Ext.P10 order stating that the Teacher was appointed without any selection process. The Government, however, did not correct the mistake by sanctioning one regular post of HSST Junior. 5. W.P.(C) No.3934/2025 has been filed by the 4 th respondent-Manager challenging Ext.P9 order of the Government and seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to sanction an HSST Junior post in Malayalam from 21.08.2017. The 4 th respondent stated that during 2014- 2015, additional batches were sanctioned, however, the Junior HSST post in Malayalam was omitted to be sanctioned. 5. W.P.(C) No.3934/2025 has been filed by the 4 th respondent-Manager challenging Ext.P9 order of the Government and seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to sanction an HSST Junior post in Malayalam from 21.08.2017. The 4 th respondent stated that during 2014- 2015, additional batches were sanctioned, however, the Junior HSST post in Malayalam was omitted to be sanctioned. The petitioner was continuing on daily wages. 6. The 4 th respondent submitted that the Government omitted to consider the admitted fact that there were 36 periods for Malayalam. After allotting 25 periods to HSST, 11 periods have to be handled by a HSST Junior. Respondents 1 to 3 therefore ought to have sanctioned a post of HSST Junior with effect from 21.08.2017. 7. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 3 rd respondent stated that as per the Staff Fixation Order dated 07.12.2017, one HSST Junior Guest Teacher Malayalam post alone is sanctioned and the Government has not created HSST Junior Malayalam post. The petitioner was appointed by the 4 th respondent-Manager unilaterally first and then sought for creation of the post. The demand has been declined by the Principal Secretary to the General Education Department. The writ petition is therefore liable to be rejected. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. 9. The petitioner was appointed as HSST Junior as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.06.2017 of the Manager. The appointment was on a daily wage basis. The argument of the petitioner is that since there are 35 periods of Malayalam per week in the School, the School is entitled to have one HSST and one HSST Junior. The petitioner's appointment with effect from 29.06.2017 is therefore liable to be approved sanctioning a post of HSST Junior. 10. Ext.P2 is the appointment order given to the petitioner. Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Junior HSST Malayalam, by the Manager. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the Government on 01.03.2023, upon a representation filed by the petitioner. 10. Ext.P2 is the appointment order given to the petitioner. Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Junior HSST Malayalam, by the Manager. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the Government on 01.03.2023, upon a representation filed by the petitioner. In Ext.P4, the Government has examined the matter and has held that when new Higher Secondary Batches are granted, only Guest Teachers need to be appointed and the decision of the Government was that creation of regular posts need to be done only after three academic years and only if there are sufficient students. The Government has also held that such regular appointments against newly created posts should be filled up by a Selection Committee inclusive of Government nominee. 11. In the case of appointment of the petitioner, the selection of the petitioner was not by a Selection Committee having the representative of the Government. As the decision of the Government is that new post need be created in Schools where new Batches are sanctioned, only after three years and subject to the availability of students, the petitioner cannot as of right claim that her appointment on daily wage basis should be approved as permanent appointment from the date of initial appointment. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed.