The Government cannot review a revisional order; petitioners must explicitly challenge orders for the court to consider them.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.28936 of 2024 has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, 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 certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 23.03.2021 of the 4^th respondent District Educational Officer, Alappuzha, and Ext.P3 order dated 31.03.2022 of the 3^rd respondent Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha; a declaration that Ext.P1 order of appointment dated 01.06.2020 of the petitioner as the Headmistress of S.D.V. Boys High School, Alappuzha, is legal, valid and sustainable; a declaration that Ext.P7 Government order dated 23.05.2024 granting notional approval to the 6^th respondent (appellant herein) as the Headmaster of S.D.V. Boys High School, Alappuzha, will not stand in the way of promotion and approval of the appointment of the petitioner as the Headmistress of the school with effect from 01.06.2020; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent State to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 revision petition dated 25.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner.

2. In the writ petition, the 4^th respondent the District Educational Officer filed a counter affidavit dated 25.10.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). The 6^th respondent (appellant herein) has also filed a counter affidavit dated 11.03.2024, opposing the relief sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) and R6(b).

3. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 13.05.2025, disposed of the writ petition, by setting aside Ext.P7 Government order dated 23.05.2024, for the reason stated in that judgment, and the 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass orders afresh, within a period of four months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Paragraphs 11 to

16 and also the last paragraph of the judgment read thus;

“11. The 6^th respondent was suspended from service on

04.09.2019. The suspension was ratified by the DEO. The 6^th respondent was reinstated in service as per order dated 14.09.2020, but with retrospective effect from 27.03.2020. In the meanwhile, vacancy of Headmaster arose on 01.06.2020. At that point of time, the 6^th respondent was under actual suspension. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed as Headmistress. Later, when the 6^th respondent was reinstated with effect from 27.03.2020 as per order dated 14.09.2020, he was appointed as Headmaster.

12. On 01.06.2020, when the post of Headmaster became vacant, the 6^th respondent could not have been appointed as Headmaster since he was under actual suspension. It was only on 14.09.2020 that the 6^th respondent was reinstated with retrospective effect from 27.03.2020.

13. In Ext.P4 revision petition, the petitioner had pointed out the fact that the 6^th respondent could not have been appointed as Headmaster on 01.06.2020. The petitioner had also pointed out that the allegation against the 6^th respondent is of serious nature and minor girl students complained of unwelcome physical contact causing physical and emotional trauma to them. The petitioner had further pointed out that on 01.04.2020, the petitioner was the next eligible candidate and hence she was appointed as Headmistress on 01.06.2020.

14. It was also pointed out in the revision petition that this Court has held in the judgment inAppukkuttan Pillai R. v. State of Kerala and others [2009 (4) KHC 418] that the words consideration of efficiency contained in Rule 43 KER will tak