High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-04-04Writ petition disposed of with directions to th...

Ajitha P v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 13799 of 2025

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:29395

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2025-04-04
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P7 representations and pass appropriate orders within three months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 5th respondent and the Manager, adverting to Ext.P4; it is clarified that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the 2nd respondent to decide after hearing, within three months, on Exts.P6 and P7, without expressing any opinion on merits.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ajitha P

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat Annex II, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695001
The Director of General Education, Higher Secondary Wing, New Building, Ulloor Lane, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695014
The Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, SRV Road, Ernakulam District, PIN – 682011
The Manager, SN HSS, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur District, PIN – 680125
Smt. P. Nileena, HSST, (English), SN HSS, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur District, PIN – 680125

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition concerns the appointment of HSST (Botany) at SN Higher Secondary School, Irinjalakuda. Ajitha P, a UPSA/HSA with qualification in Botany (MSc Botany, B.Ed, SET), claims that a vacancy in HSST (Botany) arose on 01.04.2024 following the retirement of the then Principal, K.C. Bindu. She sought by-transfer appointment to the Botany post and contended that there is no other qualified candidate for the post in 2024; Ext.P3 shows the post existed and Ext.P2/Ext.P3 record vacancies. It is argued that the first vacancy in the 2024 recruitment year must be filled by transfer, as per the 1:3 ratio elucidated in V.K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil (2018 KHC 6960). The petitioner also challenges the appointment of the 5th respondent as HSST (English) on grounds of timing and alleged lack of equivalent qualifications. The court records that the 2nd respondent should hear representations (Exts.P6 and P7) and decide after hearing both sides, referring to Ext.P4’s jurisprudence, and pass orders within three months. The court clarifies it has not expressed opinions on merits while disposing of the writ petition, leaving the ultimate decision to be determined by the authority. The matter is thus remitted for a reasoned decision consistent with the cited precedent.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

1:3 ratio in by-transfer vs direct recruitment (V.K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil)
First vacancy principle for by-transfer appointment

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that there is no justification for denying by-transfer appointment to HSST (Botany) in 2024. She asserts that the first vacancy in Botany ought to be filled by by-transfer given the 1:3 ratio and that no other qualified candidate exists in the cadre of UPSA/HSA. She challenges the appointment of the 5th respondent as HSST (English) on grounds of process and qualification adequacy, including the distance-education credentials of the appointed candidate and the mismatch with statutory equivalence recognized by universities. She relies on Exts.P1–P4 and Ext.P6–P7 to support her case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the vacancy allocation and appointment processes should proceed under established norms, that the 2nd respondent should hear both sides and decide, considering Ext.P4 (the 2018 decision) and the representations. They argue that the present appointments should be subject to final orders after proper hearing.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
V.K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil and Others	2018 KHC 6960	Positive	Cited to support the principle that by-transfer appointments go to the first vacancy; the 1:3 ratio applies to the distribution of by-transfer and direct recruitment in the recruitment year 2024.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ajitha P v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

2025:KER:29395 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947** ## **WP(C) NO. 13799 OF 2025** ## **PETITIONER:** **AJITHA P AGED 55 YEARS, W/O BINOY, UPST, SN HSS, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT (RESIDING AT KOOLA HOUSE, KAKKAT TEMPLE ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT), PIN – 680125.** **BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, HIGHER SECONDARY WING, NEW BUILDING, ULLOOR LANE,JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.** - **3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SRV ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682011.** ## **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **:2:** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29395 - **4 THE MANAGER, SN HSS, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680125.** - **5 SMT. P. NILEENA, HSST, (ENGLISH), SN HSS, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680125.** **BY ADV.SMT. ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [102 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:29395<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2025 The petitioner states that she entered service in the School as UPSA from 07.07.2006 onwards and she has got approval as well. She is qualified to hold the post of HSST (Botany), for she has M.SC (Botany), B.Ed (Natural Science) and SET (Botany). She has served as HSA (Natural Science) in the School from June, 2016 to June, 2018, as against a leave vacancy. 2. The petitioner states that Smt.K.C.Bindu, HSST (Botany) was the Principal of the School. She retired on 31.03.2024. Thus, a vacancy in the cadre of HSST (Botany) arose on 01.04.2024. The petitioner then claimed by-transfer appointment against the said post in writing. But the request was ignored by the Manager. Since Ext.P1 was left unattended **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29395 to, the petitioner moved the 3[rd] respondent with petition dated 28.06.2024, seeking for issuance of necessary direction to the Manager to grant by-transfer appointment to the petitioner as HSST (Botany). 3. Ext.P2 was resolved by the 3[rd] respondent as per letter dated 05.08.2024. In Ext.P3, the fact of the availability of the post of HSST (Botany) vacant in 2024 is declared. Ext.P3 also indicates that one vacancy of HSST (English) arose in the recruitment year 2024 under the Management. 4. The petitioner further states that Smt.C.R. Latha, HSST (English), retired on 30.04.2024. It is the second vacancy of HSST that arose on 01.05.2024, the first vacancy being HSST (Botany), which arose on 01.04.2024. It is asserted that the first vacancy in the category of HSST arose under the Management was in the category of Botany owing to the retirement of Smt. K.C. Bindu, HSST (Botany) turned Principal ## **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29395 who retired on service on 31.03.2024. In the circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the Management to grant the first post in the category of HSST i.e HSST (Botany), for appointment under by-transfer. 5. The manner in which the 1:3 ratio should be followed in the matter of appointment for the post of HSST between by-transfer appointment and direct recruitment is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of **V.K.Girija v. Reshma Parayil and others** [2018 KHC 6960]. It is clear from the said judgment that the by-transfer appointment goes to the first vacancy. Necessarily, therefore, in the recruitment year 2024, the post of HSST (Botany) ought to be filled up under by-transfer appointment, granting the said position to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner submits that there are no other qualified hands in the category of either HSA or UPSA, duly ## **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29395 qualified, for being appointed as HSST (Botany), than the petitioner. Now, the second post in the category of HSST is filled up by appointing Smt.P.Nileena, HST (English) as HSST (English) by the Management. It certainly offends the Rule. The said post of HSST (English) is the second one in the recruitment year (2024) which ought to be filled up under direct recruitment. That apart, the qualifications that are possessed by the appointee, Smt.P.Nileena, HSST (English), are not declared equivalent qualifications for the post of HSST (English) by any one of the Universities in Kerala. She obtained the qualifications under distance education from Madurai Kamaraj University in 2014. By the time she acquired the aforesaid qualifications through distance mode, the very affiliation of the said University was cancelled by the UGC. The UGC had reservation in conducting distance education by Universities beyond their territorial jurisdiction. ## **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29395 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. 8. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as HSST. The petitioner would submit that there is no justification in denying the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as HSST. Equally, the by-transfer appointment granted to the 5[th] respondent is highly arbitrary. 9. Be that as it may, I find that the petitioner has preferred Exts.P6 and P7 representations before the 2[nd] respondent in this regard. In the facts of the case, it would be sufficient if the 2[nd] respondent takes a decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent, taking note of Ext.P4 judgment also. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P7 representations **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29395 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent and the Manager, adverting to Ext.P4 also. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ams 2025:KER:29395 ## **W.P.(C)No.13799 of 2025** **:9:** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13799/2025** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSING THE MANAGER DATED 03.04.2024** - **Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDD HSE DATED 28.06.2024** - **Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE RDD HSE, EKM ADDRESSING THE PETITIONER DATED 05.08.2024** - **Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2018 KHC 6960 (GIRIJA V.K V. RESHMA PARAYIL AND OTHERS) DATED 04.12.2018** **Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDD HSE, EKM DATED 11.10.2024** **Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR DATED 16.01.2025** **Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DATED 31.01.2025**