The statutory process under Kerala Education Rules must be followed for appeals against decisions by education authorities.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

These writ appeals filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , are against the judgment dated 22.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.31509 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant in W.A.No.3117 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P7 and set aside the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd to consider the Exhibit P8 appeal submitted by the petitioner;”

That writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 22.08.2025, whereby the Director of the General Education, the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition, is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 appeal, after hearing the writ petitioner, the 6^th respondent, i.e., the appellant in W.A.No.2973 of 2025, who is the Manager of Pallikkara Central L.P Shool, and other interested persons, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. The judgment dated 22.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.31509 of 2025 reads thus:

“The petitioner's appointment as Lower Grade (Arabic) Teacher was approved as per Ext.P1 order. According to the petitioner, a forged resignation letter is held against the petitioner and that the petitioner has submitted an application before respondents 5 & 6 for withdrawing the resignation letter. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 appeal before the 2^nd respondent and seeks early consideration of the same.

In view of the limited prayer made, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8, after hearing the petitioner, the 6th respondent and other interested persons, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

3. In W.A.No.3117 of 2025 filed by the appellant-

petitioner, it is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with Ext.P7 order dated 16.01.2025 of the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, instead of ordering consideration of Ext.P8 appeal filed before the Director of General Education. In W.A.No.2973 of 2025 filed by the 6^th respondent Manager, it is contended that, when the Director of General Education cannot sit in appeal over Ext.P7 order dated 16.01.2025 of the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in directing consideration of that appeal by the Director of General Education.

4. These writ appeals were filed along with C.M.Appl.No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay, which was condoned by the order dated 12.12.2025 in W.A.No.2973 of 2025 and by the order of this date in W.A.No.3117 of 2025.

5. On 16.12.2025, when W.A.No.2973 of 2025 came up for admission, this Court passed the following;

“On a specific query made by this Court, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that no appeal can be entertained by the Director of General Education against Ext.P7 order dated 16.01.2025 of the Deputy Director of General Education, Kozhikode and the remedy open to the 1st respondent writ petitioner is to invoke the statutory remedy provided under Rule 92 of the Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules .

2. Admit.

3. Sri. George Abraham, the learned counsel takes notice for the 1^st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 6.

4. There will be an interim stay, as prayed for, for a period of one month.”

6. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the a