Kerala High Court
Sheeja.C vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 1
2026:KER:18395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 1419 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.05.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.3934 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONER IN WPC:
THE MANAGER
ABDURAHIMAN NAGAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
CHENDAPURAYA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676305
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
SHRI.HARISANKAR.K.V.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY),
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 2
2026:KER:18395
DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
BY ADV
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.1423 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 05.03.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 3
2026:KER:18395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 1423 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.05.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.32678
OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
SHEEJA.C
AGED 44 YEARS
HSST JR (MALAYALAM) ABDURAHIMAN NAGAR HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL CHENDAPPURAYA MALAPPURAM-676305
(RESIDING AT VISHAKAM, THIRUVANNURNADA P.O
KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673029
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
SHRI.GOKUL R.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY, THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY
WING) HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 4
2026:KER:18395
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
SECONDARY EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM-,
PIN - 676505
4 MANAGER
ABDURAHIMAN NAGAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
CHENDAPPURAYA MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676305
BY ADV
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.1419 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 05.03.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 5
2026:KER:18395
JUDGMENT
[W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025] Muralee Krishna S., J.
W.A.No.1423 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.32678 of 2023, and W.A.No.1419 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3934 of 2025, under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. The parties and documents to these writ appeals are referred to in their status as in W.P.(C)No.32678 of 2023, unless otherwise stated.
2. Going by the pleadings in the respective writ petitions, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.32678 of 2023, who is the appellant in the corresponding writ appeal, is working as HSST (Junior) Malayalam in Abdurahiman Nagar Higher Secondary School (the 'School' for short). The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3934 of 2025, who is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.32678 of 2023, is the Manager of the said School. The School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School in the year 2010 by sanctioning two batches, consisting of Science and Humanities. An additional batch of W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 6 2026:KER:18395 Commerce was sanctioned in the academic year 2011-12. Thereafter, an additional batch of Computer Science was granted as per the Government order dated 31.07.2014. The sanction was subsequently finalised as per Ext.P1 Government order dated 24.11.2014. Pursuant to the sanctioning of the additional batches, the total number of periods in Malayalam have arose to 36 from the academic year 2015-16 onwards, for which one HSST (Malayalam) and one HSST (Jr) in Malayalam is permissible. At that time, one HSST (Malayalam) alone was in the School.
2.1. After the commencement of the additional batches during the academic year 2014-15, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.32678 of 2023 was appointed as HSST (Jr) Malayalam in the School on 29.06.2017 by the Manager as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.06.2017. Prior to Ext.P2 order of appointment, she had been engaged from 30.06.2016, and she was getting the salary on a daily wage basis. Though the petitioner was appointed as HSST (Jr) Malayalam by virtue of Ext.P2 order of appointment, her appointment has not been approved, and she has not been paid salary and allowances. Though by virtue of Ext.P4 order dated 21.08.2017, the Government created teaching and non-teaching W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 7 2026:KER:18395 posts including HSST and HSST (Jr) and additional batches sanctioned during the academic year 2014-15, no HSST/HSST (Jr) in Malayalam was sanctioned to the petitioner's School for teaching Malayalam. The guest teacher post alone was sanctioned in the Malayalam subject. Consequent to Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent, Regional Deputy Director, issued Ext.P5 staff fixation order dated 07.12.2017, wherein one guest teacher post alone was sanctioned in the subject Malayalam, over and above one HSST already existing in the School.
2.2. The petitioner pleads that, as per Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ('KER' for short), if the workload of a teacher is 15 or more periods per week per subject, an HSST post has to be sanctioned. If the workload is less than 15 periods, an HSST (Jr) post is to be sanctioned. There is no provision for sanctioning guest teachers. The further restriction imposed by the Government as per Ext.P4 order in sanctioning the post of HSST (Jr) is totally against the provisions of the Rules, General Executive Order in existence and therefore the restriction now imposed to that extent is liable to be set aside. Aggrieved by the denial of approval and non-sanctioning of the post, the petitioner W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 8 2026:KER:18395 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.41116 of 2018 and by Ext.P7 judgment dated 23.06.2021, this Court disposed of that writ petition by setting aside Exts.P4 and P5 orders to the extent it refuses to sanction the post of HSST (Jr) Malayalam in the School from the academic year 2016-17 onwards with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter for approval of the petitioner within a period of three months. Since no action was followed in pursuance to Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner filed Con.Case(C)No.345 of 2023 before this Court and pursuant to the same, the Government issued Ext.P8 order dated 01.03.2023 by which the request of the petitioner was declined. The relevant pages of files dealing with the hearing obtained under Right to Information Act, which is produced as Ext.P9 in the writ petition would show that the Educational Officers and the Director of General Education have admitted that there are 36 periods of workload per week for Malayalam subjects and therefore they reported that the School is entitled for one HSST (Jr) Malayalam post over and above HSST (Malayalam). However, the Government, after accepting the fact that there were 36 periods for Malayalam from 2015-16 onwards, W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 9 2026:KER:18395 held that the teacher was appointed without any selection process. At the same time, the Government omitted to correct the mistake by sanctioning an HSST (Jr) post from 2017-18 onwards, along with other posts sanctioned. The said Government order dated 27.12.2024 is produced as Ext.P10 in the writ petition.
2.3. The petitioner further pleads that she is now 44 years of age and, unless and until her appointment is approved, there is no chance for her to get further employment. The petitioner produced Exts.P11 and P12 staff fixation orders dated 07.03.2019 and 29.10.2021 for the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20 issued by the 3rd respondent to show that the Malayalam was having more than 36 periods so as to sanction a HSST (Jr) post. According to the petitioner, the staff fixation of the School for the year 2020-21 to 2023-24 is not completed, and the Principal of the School has submitted the report of the fixation for the respective years, wherein also one HSST (Jr) Malayalam has been demanded, since the period increased up to 36. Contending that Ext.P10 order issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.32678 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;
W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 10
2026:KER:18395
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P8 order issued by the 1 st respondent.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to sanction the post of HSST (Jr) in Malayalam in Abdurahiman Nagar Higher Secondary School, iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Jr) in Malayalam. v. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P10 issued by the 1st respondent." 2.4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 22.02.2025 in the writ petition, wherein it is contended that the appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 was on daily wage basis and the said appointment is not considered as regular appointment. While creating teaching post including HSST and HSST (Jr.) as per the Government order dated 21.08.2017, HSST (Jr) Malayalam was not sanctioned to the School of the petitioner. The Manager made the appointment unilaterally and then asked for creation of the post.
3. Subsequently, the Manager of the School, who is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.32678 of 2023, filed W.P.(C)No.3934 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 11 2026:KER:18395 following reliefs;
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Ext.P9 order issued by the 1 st respondent,
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to sanction the junior post in Malayalam from 21.08.2017 sanctioned as per Ext.P3;
iii) Declare that financial difficulty of the Government cannot be a reason for denying sanction of the junior post, when 4 other junior posts were sanctioned as per Ext.P3 from 21.08.2017 and there were sufficient students to learn the subject;"
4. It is pleaded by the Manager of the School in W.P.(C)No.3934 of 2025 that the Government order dated 01.03.2023 was issued without properly realising the grievance that the post of HSST (Jr) in Malayalam was omitted to be sanctioned, and the Government considered the issue from a different perspective. Therefore, the teacher is denied daily wages from June 2019 onwards. According to the Manager of the School, the question of appointment to the post arises only after the consideration of the claim for sanctioning the post and therefore, the Government misunderstood the claim and found that the teacher was appointed without any selection process. W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 12
2026:KER:18395
5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned common judgment dated 13.05.2025 dismissed the writ petitions. Being aggrieved, the petitioners in the respective writ petitions have filed these writ appeals.
6. In the writ appeals, on behalf of the 1st respondent, separate counter affidavits dated 13.01.2026 were filed with the same contentions. Paragraphs 3 to 9 of the counter affidavit filed in W.A.No.1423 of 2025 are extracted hereunder for a better understanding of the contentions of the 1st respondent, which read thus;
"3. Abdurahiman Nagar Higher Secondary School, Chendapuraya, Malappuram was upgraded as Higher Secondary School in 2010 by sanctioning two batches i.e., Science and Humanities, An additional batch of Commerce was sanctioned in the academic year 2011-12. An additional batch of Computer Science was sanctioned in the school of 4th respondent vide Exhibit P1 order dated 31.07.2014 with Prospective effect. The appellant was appointed as HSST (Jr) Malayalam in Abdurahiman Nagar Higher Secondary School, Chendapuraya, Malappuram, since 29.06.2017 by the Manager on daily wage basis. Appointment on daily wage basis is not considered for regular appointment.
Government have created teaching posts including HSST W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 13 2026:KER:18395 and HSST(Jr) as per Exhibit P4 dated 21.08.2017 for Higher Secondary Schools. HSST(Jr) post in Malayalam was not created to the ARN HSS, Chendapuraya. As per the staff fixation order and the above Government Order one HSST(Jr) Malayalam guest teacher post is sanctioned in ARN HSS, Chendapuraya. The Manager has appointed unilaterally and then asked for the creation of the post. A teacher appointed on daily wage basis cannot be considered for regular appointments considered for regular appointment.
4. It is submitted that posts are created taking into account the number of students, educational need, academic interests and the financial status of Government. The creation of posts is purely a policy decision of the Government. While sanctioning of Higher Secondary batches it was specifically ordered that the classes will be conducted by appointing Guest Lecturers, Posts can be created after careful consideration of financial Position of the Government also. Creation of posts leads to additional financial commitment to the Government. At present, due to financial constraints, Government decided not to create the post. In order to protect the interest of the students of the school, the Government have permitted to make an appointment on daily wage basis (Guest Lecturer).
5. It is submitted that as per the staff fixation order and the above Government Order one HSST(Jr) Malayalam guest teacher post is sanctioned in ARN HSS Chendapuraya, The Manager has appointed unilaterally the writ petitioner and after that seeking for the creation of the post. Appointment W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 14 2026:KER:18395 on daily wage basis is not considered for regular appointment. The regular appointment to teaching posts are made on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the Manager (Chairman), Principal of the school and a representative of the Government. The selection committee prepare rank list of candidates after conducting an interview. Appointment of appellant as HSST (Jr.) Malayalam in the school was not made according to the recommendation of the selection committee. Therefore, the request to create a post and approve the appointment of writ petitioner was rejected.
6. It is submitted that the appellant was appointed as HSST (Junior) Malayalam in the School since 29.06.2017 by the Manager on daily wage basis. Appointment on daily wage basis is not considered for regular appointment. Appointment of appellant as HSST(Jr.) Malayalam in the school was not as per the rules.
7. It is submitted that the Government create the post taking into account the number of students, educational need, academic interests and the financial status of the Government. HSST (Jr) Malayalam post is not created in this school, however the interest of students in the school is protected by granting permission to make appointment of Guest Lecturer. Manager has authority to make regular appointments only after the post is created by the Government. Creation of posts is purely a policy decision of the Government. While sanctioning of Higher Secondary batches it was specifically ordered that the classes will be conducted by appointing Guest Lecturers. Posts can be W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 15 2026:KER:18395 created after careful consideration of financial Position of the Government also, Creation of Posts leads to additional financial commitment to the Government.
8. It is submitted that under Kerala Education Rules, the creation of teaching posts in aided Higher Secondary Schools is the exclusive prerogative of the Government, based on sanctioned batches, workload norms and financial capacity. No provision of the Rules gives the Manager a right to demand creation of a post solely because the Manager has appointed a teacher or because workload is claimed to exist.
9. It is submitted that as Per provisions of law, an appointment cannot be made to a post which is not sanctioned by the Government. The petitioner's appointment was made to a non-existent post and is therefore void abinitio. KER does not recognize any claim by a daily wage/guest teacher to seek regular appointment or to seek post creation for validating such engagement. It is well settled that an appointment made dehorse the Statutory provisions and not against a sanctioned post does not confer any right to regularization."
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in the respective writ appeals and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that as per Rule 1(e) of Chapter XXXII of KER, Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr) has been defined, by which, if the workload is W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 16 2026:KER:18395 less than 15 periods per week in a subject, Junior post can be sanctioned. Admittedly, in the School, there are 36 periods per week for the Malayalam subject, and therefore, apart from one HSST, one HSST (Jr) post is also to be sanctioned for Malayalam. The relevant pages of the hearing note produced in the writ petition would show that the 3rd respondent has submitted a report that the school is at least entitled for junior post prospectively, but it was noted that the financial condition of the Government is not satisfactory to sanction new posts. Financial constraints are not a reason for non-sanctioning of posts, which are mandatory as per the Statute. However, none of these aspects was considered by the learned Single Judge.
9. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that by Ext.P2 order, the Manager has unilaterally made appointment of the petitioner in a non-sanctioned post. The creation of a post in a Higher Secondary School is the policy decision of the Government, and without a sanctioned post, a teacher cannot be appointed, only for the reason that there are sufficient teaching hours for the creation of a post of HSST (Jr). The interest of the students is protected by the Government by W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 17 2026:KER:18395 permitting a daily wage appointment.
10. There are some admitted and undisputed facts in the present cases. The petitioner was working as a daily wage teacher in the School from 30.06.2016 till her appointment by Ext.P2 order dated 29.06.2017 by the Manager. It is also discernible from the pleadings and materials that the petitioner was appointed by the Manager in a non-sanctioned post. It is also not in dispute that after the sanctioning of additional batches during the academic year 2014-15, the total teaching hours for Malayalam in the School are 36 periods per week. Therefore, as per Rule 1(e) of Chapter XXXII of KER, the School has sufficient teaching hours in Malayalam for the creation of an additional post of HSST (Jr) apart from the existing post of HSST. It is also not in dispute that in Ext.P10 order dated 27.12.2024, the Government has rejected the request for the creation of the post of HSST (Jr) Malayalam, stating the reason of financial commitment. Moreover, as far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, in Ext.P10 order, the Government took a stand that her appointment was in a non- sanctioned post unilaterally done by the Manager without following the procedure for making the appointment by conducting a W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 18 2026:KER:18395 selection process through a committee consisting of the School Manager, the Principal and the representative of the Government.
11. Though the petitioner contends that in Ext.P10 order Government has not considered sanctioning of the post of HSST (Jr), after the sanctioning of additional batches during the academic year 2014-15, Ext.P10 order shows otherwise. According to the Government, the sanctioning of the post is a policy decision, and the interest of the students is protected by permitting the School to conduct the teaching by appointing guest teachers. As per Ext.P10, the sanctioning of posts would be done after three consecutive staff fixation orders, whereby it has to be found that School is having sufficient number of students. As found in Ext.P10 order, the appointment of the petitioner was not by a selection committee having the representative of the Government, and the petitioner also has no such case.
12. In such circumstances, we find no incorrectness in the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner cannot, as of right, claim that her appointment on a daily wage basis should be approved as a permanent appointment from the initial day of appointment.
W.A.Nos.1419 and 1423 of 2025 19
2026:KER:18395
13. Having considered the pleadings and the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising the appellate jurisdiction.
In the result, these writ appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MSA