Statutory revision petitions must be heard fairly, acknowledging prior approvals and claims.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner states that he was appointed as UPST in the Dr. C.T. Eapen Memorial Residential Higher Secondary School from 01.06.2017 onwards. After long round of litigations, Government issued order dated 05.02.2025 for approval to the appointment of the petitioner. It was implemented by the District Educational Officer as per order dated 11.09.2025. Thus, the petitioner has got approval as UPST from 01.06.2017 onwards.

2. While so, the post in which the petitioner was appointed was abolished as per the Staff Fixation order for the year 2022-2023. Consequently, the petitioner was retrenched. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted reappointment as UPST in a retirement vacancy with effect from 02.06.2025 onwards. It was sent for approval. Thus, the petitioner had been continuing as UPST with Ext.P3 re-appointment since

02.06.2025.

3. Strangely, the Manager has withdrawn the reappointment as per letter dated 06.08.2025, offering appointment to the 5^th respondent who was HSA (Malayalam) and the petitioner was sent out of service from 31.03.2024. Challenging the same, an Appeal was filed by the petitioner before the District Educational Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been working as UPST from 01.06.2017, whereas the 5^th respondent had rendered service only as HSA (Malayalam). He did not have service as UPST. Therefore, the preferential claim for re-appointment as UPST shall be in favor of the petitioner.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the claim for the post of UPST advanced by the 5^th respondent would be available only in the absence of a retrenched UPST. However, without any hearing whatsoever over Ext.P6, the District Educational Officer has unilaterally declined the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P7.

5. The petitioner had also tendered Ext.P8 objection before the Director of General Education in the matter. In Ext.P8, the petitioner had put forth his better claim over the 5^th respondent, but the same was not considered. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 Revision Petition before the Government, which is pending consideration.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

7. The petitioner would urge that Ext.P7 is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has got approval as UPST from 01.06.2017 onwards. After retrenchment, the petitioner was granted re-appointment as UPST in a retirement vacancy with effect from 02.06.2025. It was sent for approval. The petitioner had been continuing as UPST with Ext.P3 reappointment since 02.06.2025. Strangely, the Manager had withdrawn the re-appointment.

8. Government Pleader as well as the counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would oppose the averments made by the petitioner and resist the writ petition.

9. Be that as it may, from the pleadings I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 statutory Revision Petition before the 1^st respondent in this regard. As Ext.P9 is a statutory Revision Petition, it would be only appropriate that the revisional authority takes a decision in the matter.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

1^st respondent to consider Ext.P9 Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5.

Sd/-