The court emphasized the necessity for expedited review of a revision petition concerning employment under disability law to safeguard the petitioner's position.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 Petitioner was appointed as Full Time Menial in the CHM Higher Secondary School, Elayavoor from 21.08.2025 onwards. The petitioner was granted appointment by the 5^th respondent-Manager duly taking note of the fact that the petitioner is having mild intellectual disability.

2. The petitioner has registered his name in the District Employment Exchange. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner may be treated as having been made under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 . Ignoring Exts.P3 and P4, approval to the appointment of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1, was declined by the Educational Officer as per Order dated 23.12.2025.

3. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition before the Government. Ordinarily, Ext.P5 could be assailed only by the Manager filing Appeal before the

3^rd respondent through SAMANWAYA. It may take some time and in the meanwhile, the petitioner would be at the receiving end and hence he attempted Ext.P6 Revision Petition before the Government. It is further submitted that any delay in considering Ext.P6 would result in retrenchment of the petitioner. Therefore, pending disposal of Ext.P6, the petitioner may be permitted to continue in service, contends the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.

5. The petitioner would urge that Ext.P5 is unsustainable as it was issued by the Educational Officer without adverting to the statutory mandate of reservation for Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder.

6. Be that as it may, from the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 Revision Petition against Ext.P5. As Ext.P6 is a statutory Revision Petition filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, it would be only just and proper that the 1^st respondent considers Ext.P6 expeditiously.

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

Sd/-