Rajeev K.R v State of Kerala & Ors
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V
- Judgment Date
- 2023-01-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext P6 on merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and respondents 8 and 9, either physically or virtually, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is rendered on Ext P6, the grant of approval to the appointment of the 9th respondent shall be deferred. It would be open to the petitioner to submit a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment to the concerned respondent for further action.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rajeev K.R
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Secretary to Government Department of Social Justice
- Secretary to Government Department of General Education
- Director of General Education
- Deputy Director of Education
- District Educational Officer
- Assistant Education Officer
- Manager Ithithanam Higher Secondary School
- Ambily K.Nair
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Kaleeswaram Raj
- • Shilpa Soman
- • Thulasi K. Raj
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt Nisha Bose, Sr Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev K.R., is working as a Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) at Ithithanam Higher Secondary School under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. He contends that he is a differently abled person with 45% disability (Ext P1) and seeks the benefit of reservation in promotion under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to a post of H.S.T (Mathematics). He asserts that when a vacancy for HST (Mathematics) arose on 01.06.2021, the 9th respondent was appointed by the 8th respondent contrary to the entitlement under Ext P5 and the policy. He relies on Ext P4 (representation in 2021) and Ext P6 (representation to the 2nd respondent) and cites this Court’s own decisions in Leesamma Joseph (State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph) and the judgments in K.J Varghese v. State of Kerala & Ors and Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka to bolster his claim that the entitlement should be recognised and that the representation should be treated on merits. He hopes to be promoted in a new retirement vacancy anticipated on 31.05.2023. The petitioner prays for a mandamus to promote him to H.S.T (Mathematics) with effect from 01.06.2021 or at least 15.07.2021 and to restrain the 8th respondent from approving the 9th respondent’s promotion. The respondents submit that the petitioner’s earlier W.P.(C) No.15246/21 was withdrawn, implying this petition may not be entertainable. The Court disposed of the matter by directing the 2nd respondent to expeditiously consider Ext P6 after hearing, within two months, and to defer the appointment of the 9th respondent pending the decision, while permitting the petitioner to rely on the writ petition and judgment for further action.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner asserts entitlement to promotion to the post of H.S.T (Mathematics) in the retirement vacancy arising on 31.05.2023 or earlier, relying on Exts P4, P5 and P6 and on the law laid down in Leesamma Joseph, Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka, and K.J Varghese. He argues that the 9th respondent’s appointment in 2021 ignored the disability-reservation provisions and that Ext P6 requires expeditious consideration by the 2nd respondent, with a mandamus to promote in the next suitable vacancy, subject to due process and hearing. He seeks to prevent premature approval of the 9th respondent’s promotion pending Ext P6’s outcome.
Contentions of Respondents
The Government Pleader contends that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.15246/21, which was withdrawn, and thus the petition may not be entertained. He argues that Ext P6 is to be considered on merits in accordance with policy and law, and that no immediate entitlement to the promotion has crystallized; the relief sought, including mandamus to promote on 01.06.2021, is premature given the withdrawal of the earlier petition and absence of final order.”
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph | 2021 (4) KLT 192 | Positive | Cited as authority for entitlement considerations in disability-reservation in promotions and for expeditious consideration of representations. |
| Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka | 2020 SCC Online SC 45 | Positive | Cited for legal principles related to promotions/reservations in retirement vacancies and due consideration. |
| K.J Varghese v. State of Kerala & Ors | 2022/KER/43342 | Positive | Cited as supportive precedent in similar promotion eligibility matters. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Rajeev K.R v State of Kerala & Ors and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.