The Court established that denying approval for a school teacher's appointment based on procedural non-compliance without statutory basis violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner states that she was appointed as HST (Maths) in a retirement vacancy with effect from 16.07.2021 on retirement of Girija on 31.05.2020. The proposal for approval of appointment was rejected stating that the Manager has not appointed Protected Teacher in compliance of Rule 7(3) of Chapter XXI of KER. The appeal was also rejected. The Manager executed a declaration on 02.07.2024 by setting apart a vacancy. But the petitioner resigned on 07.05.2024 so as to join Economics and Statistics Department.

2. The 5^th respondent reconsidered the proposal in the light of the direction of this Court in Ext P2 order along with 12 other Teachers and the proposal of the petitioner alone was rejected stating that she was not in service as on 02.07.2024. The appeal filed by the Manager with delay was rejected and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, which is pending consideration.

3. In the meanwhile, the 6^th respondent appointed one HST (Maths) in the resignation vacancy of the petitioner and one HST in another vacancy. Both appointments were rejected, stating that the petitioner’s appointment was not approved. But, in appeal before the 2^nd respondent, 3^rd respondent issued an order treating the resignation of the petitioner as accepted and established vacancy had arisen when the appeal filed by the petitioner was pending consideration.

4. The denial of approval for the period from

16.07.2021 to 07.05.2024 is for noncompliance with appointment of Protected Teacher. Assuming the Manager has obligation, he submitted declaration with effect from 02.07.2024 and the appointment of the other Teachers was approved. In the light of the decision in State of Kerala and others v. S Haseena and others [2013 (2) KHC 103] , the approval cannot be postponed.

5. The Manager filed a revision before the Government which was disposed by Ext.P10 communication violating principles of natural justice and disposed not by an executive order in terms of Article 166(3). Moreover, the amendment brought in Kerala Education Act and Rules in 2016 by which Rule 7(3)(a) of Chapter XXI of KER was introduced, cannot be enforced in the light of Exts.P11 and P12 orders. The complaint filed before the 5^th respondent similar to Ext.P7 was disposed as per Ext.P13 communication stating that the issue can be decided only by the Government is illegal, contends the petitioner.

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

7. The petitioner would contend that the orders rejecting approval from 16.07.2021 stating that the 6^th respondent has not complied with Rule 7(3) of Chapter XXI of KER, which was inserted as per Government Order dated

03.12.2016 is illegal and arbitrary.

8. Going through the pleadings, I find that the Managers Revision Petition has been rejected as per Ext.P10 communication of the Secretary to the Government. Ext.P10 is in the nature of a letter. When a statutory Revision Petition is filed, the revisional authority has to pass orders on revision in an appropriate form. Ext.P10 is therefore not sustainable.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside Ext.P10 and directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider the matter and pass orders afresh within a period of three months.

While reconsidering the Revision Petition, the 1^st respondent should also advert to Exts.P11 and P12 orders. The 1^st respondent should also examine whether a list of Protected Teachers was sent by the Deputy Director of Education to the Man