Kerala High Court Directs Expeditious Disposal of Writ Petition Filed by Higher Secondary School Teachers Seeking Regularisation of Guest Period Services and Restoration of Seniority — “Representative Hearing for Petitioners Ordered

Court’s Decision:

The Kerala High Court in WP(C) No. 18073 of 2025 disposed of the writ petition filed by Higher Secondary School Teachers seeking a writ of mandamus to regularise their guest period services and restore their seniority. The Court took note of the pending revision petitions filed before the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter 14-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, and directed:

“The present writ petition is disposed of, with direction to the 1st respondent to decide the pending revision petition filed by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners.”

It further clarified:

“All the petitioners are not required to be heard by the revisional authority but their representatives should be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the final orders.”

Facts:

• The petitioners are all Higher Secondary School Teachers from various districts in Kerala.
• They filed a writ petition praying for regularisation of their guest service period and consequent restoration of seniority.
• The petitioners had already filed revision petitions under Rule 92 of Chapter 14-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, before the Principal Secretary, General Education Department (1st respondent).
• The revision petitions were still pending as on the date of filing the writ petition.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the State to regularise their guest period services?
2. Whether the pending revision petitions under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, ought to be disposed of in a time-bound manner?

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners relied on multiple Government Orders and judicial precedents to claim that their period of service rendered as guest teachers ought to be regularised.
• They submitted that non-regularisation had adversely impacted their seniority and promotional prospects.
• They contended that similar claims had been adjudicated in their favour by the High Court and the Apex Court in previous matters.
• The petitioners argued that administrative delay in disposal of their pending revisions had left them remediless.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The learned Government Pleader submitted that the revision petitions are currently pending and would be considered in accordance with law.
• The State assured the Court that the revisional authority will take a decision expeditiously on the merits of each case.

Analysis of the Law:

• Rule 92 of Chapter 14-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 permits aggrieved parties to seek revision before the Government in matters concerning their service rights.
• The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the claim regarding regularisation or seniority, but confined itself to ensuring that the statutory remedy already invoked is efficacious and timely.
• The decision reflects judicial restraint and deference to the administrative forum designated for such service-related determinations.

Precedent Analysis:

The petitioners annexed multiple precedents and government orders to substantiate their case:

• Exhibit P4: Judgment dated 19.09.2014 in WP(C) No. 20849/2013.
• Exhibit P5: Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 30.04.2024 in SLP No. 18120/2019.
• Exhibit P6: Judgment dated 24.05.2024 in WP(C) No. 13664/2018 along with connected WP(C) No. 27408/2020.
• Exhibit P9: Judgment dated 22.04.2025 in WP(C) No. 16286/2025 of the Kerala High Court.

While the High Court acknowledged that similar matters had been adjudicated earlier, it refrained from expressing any final opinion on their applicability to the present case, as the revision petitions were pending.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court balanced the interests of judicial economy and administrative autonomy by refraining from granting a writ of mandamus on the merits and instead:

• Acknowledged that the petitioners had already resorted to a valid statutory remedy.
• Noted the Government’s assurance of a time-bound disposal.
• Directed that a representative hearing be given to the petitioners.

This ensured that the matter would be considered fairly by the authority without burdening the judicial docket unnecessarily.

Conclusion:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent (Principal Secretary, General Education Department) to:

• Decide the pending revision petitions under Rule 92 of Chapter 14-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959,
• Within four months,
• After granting an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the petitioners.

The Court clarified that individual hearing of all petitioners was not necessary.

Implications:

• The order reaffirms the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted and respected by courts.
• It provides assurance to similarly placed teachers that their grievances will be addressed in a time-bound manner.
• The directive for representative hearing reduces administrative burden while preserving the right to be heard.
• The case adds to the growing body of decisions where courts adopt a facilitative rather than interventionist approach in service matters.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Refuses to Reduce Sentence for Advocate Convicted of Outraging Modesty of Female Magistrate Inside a Courtroom — “Injustice to Justice Itself; Law Must Speak Loudly and Clearly”