The court mandates procedural fairness and proper examination of claims in administrative appointments under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, who retired from service as L.P.S.T., challenges the appointment of the 7^th respondent as Headmaster of the School under the 6^th respondent. The Headmaster post fell vacant on 01.06.2024, upon the retirement of Sri.Benoy Philip.

2. The petitioner had submitted a representation on 27.05.2024 as per Ext.P1 claiming the post, citing his qualifications and seniority. Despite this, the 6^th respondent appointed the 7^th respondent as Headmaster with effect from 01.06.2024 (Ext.P2), overlooking the petitioner’s legitimate claim. The 7^th respondent lacked the requisite qualification of

12 years of continuous service for appointment as Headmaster.

3. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 first appeal on

12.06.2024 with the 5^th respondent, followed by Ext.P4 representation to the 4^th respondent on 21.09.2024. Subsequently, the 5^th respondent, through Ext.P5 order dated 19.09.2024, rejected the 7^th respondent's appointment proposal due to non-fulfillment of qualifications.

4. However, the petitioner’s grievance raised in Ext.P3 was not adequately examined. The petitioner further submitted Ext.P7 second appeal on 15.10.2024 to the 4^th respondent, along with Ext.P8 representation to the 6^th respondent on 16.10.2024. The seniors, respondents 8, 9 and 10 have not claimed the Headmaster post, leaving the petitioner as the rightful claimant. Judicial precedents reinforce the petitioner’s position. The petitioner challenges Ext.P15 order dated 16.12.2025 as arbitrary.

5. The 2^nd respondent has wrongly recorded dates, ignored binding status quo orders of this Court and overlooked decisive documents including RTI replies disproving the Minority status of the School. The impugned order, having been passed in a hasty and negligent manner and in violation of principles of natural justice, warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , contends the petitioner.

6. The petitioner seeks an order to keep the implementation of Ext.P15 order in abeyance until the consideration and disposal of Ext.P18 Revision Petition by the 1^st respondent after granting the petitioner a personal hearing to ensure justice and procedural fairness.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5. Notice to respondents 6 to 10 is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

8. The petitioner would assert that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment in the Headmaster vacancy from 01.06.2024. I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P18 Revision Petition in this regard. As the petitioner has invoked his statutory remedy, it would be only just and proper that the revisional authority considers the same in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P18 Revision Petition and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of four months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any.

Sd/-