Procedural fairness must be observed in appointment approvals under educational regulations.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2025 The petitioner is serving as an LP School Teacher (LPST) in a School managed by the 6^th respondent. She was initially appointed on daily wage basis in a retirement vacancy of Sri.Vasanthan M.K., which was approved by the 5^th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P1.

2. Subsequently, upon the resignation of another daily wage LPST, Smt.Anjana M.C., the petitioner resigned from her earlier post and was freshly appointed by the Manager to the regular vacancy that arose due to the said resignation. However, the 5^th respondent rejected the approval of this appointment through Ext.P4, citing certain procedural defects such as non-production of staff list, issues relating to the Character and Antecedent Certificate, omission of the Medical Officer’s name in the Medical Certificate and non-

production of the order accepting the resignation of Smt.Anjana M.C. Additionally, an objection was raised that the petitioner had been approved earlier in a different vacancy on daily wage basis.

3. Aggrieved by that, the 6^th respondent-

Manager filed an appeal before the 4^th respondent, undertaking to cure the procedural defects. In compliance, the Manager produced all requisite documents including the staff statement, corrected Character and Antecedents Certificate, proper Medical Certificate and the AEO’s order accepting the resignation of Smt.Anjana M.C. However, despite full compliance, the DEO rejected the appeal through Ext.P10 without properly appreciating the materials produced or addressing the explanations offered.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed a statutory Revision Petition under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules before the 2^nd respondent challenging Exts.P4 and P10. However, the Revision Petition remains pending without any consideration or action, resulting in serious prejudice and hardship to the petitioner, who continues in service without approval to a regular vacancy to which she is lawfully entitled.

5. Since the procedural objections have been fully cured and there exists no prohibition under the Kerala Education Act or Rules against approval of appointment in a fresh vacancy following a lawful resignation, the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable. The unexplained inaction of the 2^nd respondent in considering Ext.P11 amounts to denial of justice, contends the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5.

7. The petitioner would urge that Ext.P4 issued by the Assistant Educational Officer and Ext.P10 issued by the District Educational Officer are contrary to the statutory scheme contained in Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules . The 4^th respondent, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, was legally bound to consider the explanations and Exts.P6 to P9 documents submitted by the Manager. The act of the 4^th respondent-DEO in rejecting Ext.P5 appeal as per Ext.P10 order without adverting to the rectified documents, is arbitrary and illegal.

8. Be that as it may, from the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 Revision Petition invoking Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules in this regard. As the petitioner has already invoked the revisional remedy, it would be only appropriate that the revisional authority considers Ext.P11 and takes a decision thereon within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P11 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.