The court affirms procedural legitimacy in educational appointments, emphasizing that authority must be respected during appointive disputes.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is working as HSST in the services of the 4^th respondent School with effect from 04.09.2000. She is the seniormost Teacher and is fully qualified for appointment as Principal. A vacancy of Principal arose on 01.06.2025 and the petitioner was appointed as the Principal by the Manager as per Ext.P6.

2. The petitioner states that in the meantime, the

5^th respondent, who is not qualified, raised a claim against the appointment of the petitioner and writ petitions were filed before this Court suppressing material fact and using forged documents. The 3^rd respondent rejected the approval as per Ext.P10, against which a revision is preferred and a hearing was conducted. No orders are issued yet. This being so, on 25.01.2026, the 5^th respondent using her influence and power, made the General Body of the Educational Agency to take a decision to direct the petitioner to go on leave and to appoint her as the Principal. The General Body does not have the power and authority to take such a decision in view of the byelaw. In view of the pending Revision Petition, such action is totally impermissible. Unless there is an interference by this Court, the petitioner will be removed from the post of Principal, contends the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been duly promoted as Principal and the 5^th respondent does not have SET qualification. However, the General Body of the Educational Agency has passed a resolution based on which the petitioner is required to go on leave.

5. Be that as it may, I find that Ext.P11 Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 1^st respondent and the petitioner would assert that hearing was conducted on 30.08.2025, in which opportunity of hearing was given to the parties concerned. In such circumstances, it would be only appropriate that the 1^st respondent passes final orders in Ext.P11 Revision Petition and till such time, the status quo as regards continuance of the petitioner be maintained.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

1^st respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P11 within a period of two months, till which date, the status quo as regards petitioner's continuance as Principal shall be maintained.

Sd/-