The petitioner states that he is working as an Office Attendant/Peon in the NM Upper Primary School, Pathanamthitta, an aided School managed by the 5th respondent. The instant writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the rejection of the promotion of the petitioner as Office Attendant/Peon on the ground that the School in which the petitioner was working is an uneconomic School and therefore a protected hand ought to have been appointed in view of the circulars issued by the Government. The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner also stands rejected stating that in the absence of specific Government Orders, a Rule 43 claimant cannot be permitted to steal a march over protected hands who are entitled as per the Government Orders to appointment in uneconomic schools.

2. The petitioner contends that the very same issue had earlier engaged the attention of this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court in Bipin Pavithran and Another V. State of Kerala and Others [2021 (2) KHC 515] had held that denial of approval of the appointment of the petitioner therein as a Peon on the ground that the school is an “uneconomic one” was improper as the post of Peon was mandatory in every School whether or not it has sufficient students.

3. Bipin Pavithran (Supra) was challenged by the Government by preferring Writ Appeal Nos.1346 of 2021 and their Lordships of the Division Bench had upheld the findings of the Learned Single Judge holding that the post of Peon/Office Attendant was not one, which was likely to be abolished in any staff fixation since the post itself is one that is statutorily envisaged irrespective of the student strength in the School concerned. It was held that the Government Orders based on which the claims are rejected cannot override the clear statutory provisions.

4. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“

i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or

order quashing Ext.P18 order issued by respondent No.1;

ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

or order directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to grant approval to the appointment by promotion of the petitioner as Officer Attendant/Peon in N.M. Upper Primary School, Keekozhur from the approved post of

full time menial to the sanctioned promotion vacancy of Office Attendant/Peon in recognition statutory right under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A read with Rule 7 of Chapter XXIV B KER in the light of Exhibits- P12, P13 and P14 rulings of this Hon’ble Court and Exts.P15 and P16 Government Orders forthwith or within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;

iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to sanction and disburse salary and allowances to the petitioner in the post of Office Attendant/Peon in N.M.Upper Primary School, Keekozhur with effect from 01.10.2014 onwards (deducting lower post salary) in the light of Exhibits-P12, P13 and P14 ruling of this Hon’ble Court and Exts.P15 and P16 Government Orders forthwith or within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;

iv) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts.P5, P7 and P8 orders issued by respondent Nos.4, 3 and 2.”

5. I have heard Sri.Subhash Chand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced and on a perusal of the records, I am of the view that the principles laid down in Bipin Pavithran (Supra) as upheld by the Division Bench would apply on all force in the case of the petitioner as well. The only reason stated in the impugned order passed by the respondents to deny promotion to the petitioner in recognition of his statutory right under Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA of the KER is that the School in which t