logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 1211 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Kerala
Case No : WP(PIL) NO. 96 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.M. SYAM KUMAR
Parties : C. Aneesh Versus State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: C.R. Suresh Kumar, Amrutha Suresh, V.T. Vineeth, Advocates. For the Respondents: Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 05-08-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 60104,
Judgment :-

Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. C.R. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ann Olivia Valluvanadan representing Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel and Ms. O.A. Nuriya, learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. The additional affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, discloses the current vacancy position in the vocational stream. It further states that no persons are presently engaged on a daily wage basis in the posts of Vocational Instructors and Laboratory Technical Assistants in the Government Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department and the temporary engagement in these categories are discontinued pursuant to Letter No.155/ SC3/ 2018/ G.Edn. dated 14th June 2018, consequent upon the implementation of the National Skills Qualifications Framework (NSQF) introduced as per G.O.(Ms) No. 56/2018/G.Edn. dated 9th May 2018.

3. On implementation of NSQF curriculum, a ban exists in the appointment of posts in Vocational Stream, viz., Vocational Teacher, Vocational Instructor and Laboratory Technical Assistant. The ban still exists. Undoubtedly, the said affidavit has disclosed a large number of vacancies in various streams concerning vocational education, and we could not find any satisfactory explanation from the State for the continuation of the said ban, despite there being a requirement for staff in the said streams.

4. However, we do not propose to treat this petition as a Public Interest Litigation, as none of the persons aggrieved by the said decision are before us. The Tribunal had afforded them an opportunity to apply; however, it appears that none of them sought the quashing of the NSQF introduced pursuant to the order dated 9th May 2018. We make it clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not stand in the way of the aggrieved parties seeking appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law. We expect the State to take a considered decision with regard to filling up the vacancies, as the requirement of staff in the vocational stream cannot be ignored and is essential for its smooth and proper functioning.

The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of accordingly.
 
  CDJLawJournal