The court mandates administrative review of appointment approvals under educational regulations, ensuring fair process and timely decisions.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is Manager of an Aided School, namely Senior Basic School, Meetna in Palakkad District. He has appointed Greeshma KG as Junior Language Hindi Teacher (FT) by Ext.P1 on daily wages and approval was rejected by Ext.P2. She was appointed in the very same vacancy in a scale of pay by Ext.P3 with effect from 02.06.2025. Ext.P5 shows that roster was submitted and accepted by the Department and that post is kept vacant. Now, the appeal has been rejected stating that even though roster is submitted and the petitioner has fulfilled conditions, the approval cannot be given to the incumbent.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

3. The petitioner would submit that there is no justification for keeping the appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis when necessary posts are already sanctioned. The 5^th respondent has to approve the appointment made as per Ext.P3 in scale of pay and grant consequential benefits to the petitioner.

4. From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1^st respondent in this regard. As the petitioner has already invoked his revisional remedy under Section 92 of Chapter XIV A KER, the 1^st respondent has to consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-