The Director of General Education must consider a revision petition regarding appointment approvals under Rule 8A of the Kerala Education Rules, reaffirming the statutory rights of teachers in the appointment process.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant is the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.23529 of 2025, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent herein- petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent Director of General Education to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P16 revision petition dated 07.05.2025 made by the petitioner, invoking the provisions under Rule 8A Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ( KER ), after adverting to Rule 45C of Chapter XIVA of , as expeditiously as possible; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 03.01.2025 and Ext.P15 order dated 28.04.2025 of the 4^th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Iritty, as they are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Rules in ; a declaration that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Headmistress of Thillenkeri U.P. School, Kannur District, as she is fully qualified for the said post as on the date of occurrence of vacancy, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment dated 01.06.2005, Ext.P2 order of approval dated 17.09.2019, Exts.P3 and P4 certificates of departmental tests; a writ of mandamus commanding the 4^th respondent Assistant Educational Officer to promote the petitioner as Headmistress of Thillenkeri U.P. School from the date of occurrence of vacancy, i.e., 01.04.2022 forthwith; and a declaration that the 5^th respondent in the writ petition, i.e., the appellant herein is not entitled to continue as Headmistress of Thillenkeri U.P. School, as she is not qualified for the post as on the date of occurrence of vacancy, i.e., 01.04.2022.

2. On 27.06.2025, when W.P.(C)No.23529 of 2025 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge disposed of the same, directing the 3^rd respondent Director of General Education to decide Ext.P16 appeal [sic: revision petition] filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

3. Challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.23529 of 2025, the appellant- 5^th respondent is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 . This writ appeal is one filed along with C.M.Application No.1 of 2025 seeking an order to condone the filing delay of 27 days, which was condoned by the order dated 18.11.2025.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-5^th respondent, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4.

5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted in the direction contained in the judgment dated 24.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.23529 of 2025, whereby the Director of General Education has been directed to take a decision on Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, within a time limit specified in that judgment.

6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-5^th respondent is that Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the 1^st respondent-petitioner is not maintainable before the 3^rd respondent Director of General Education. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge went wrong in directing the said respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P16 revision petition.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4 would contend that the statutory remedy available to