Educational appointment approvals must adhere to statutory and procedural norms, considering legitimate challenges by affected parties.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2026 The 1^st petitioner is the Manager of a Higher Secondary School at Thiruvalayannur in Thrissur District. Petitioners 2 to 8 are Upper Primary School Teachers working in the said School.

2. It is submitted that approval to appointment of petitioners 4 to 8 have been rejected stating that approval has not been granted to the seniors. The petitioners state that the said reason is no more valid in view of Ext.P32.

Petitioners 2 and 3 already have been granted approval.

3. Further objection raised is regarding the appointment of Differently abled Persons. The petitioners would submit that such objection is also unsustainable as the Manager has reserved sufficient posts for accommodating the PwD candidates. Therefore, the appointments of petitioners 4 to 8 are liable to be approved, contend the petitioners.

4. I find that the petitioners are challenging Exts.P2 to P6, P8 to P11, P13 to P15, P17 to P19, P21 to P24, P26 to P29 and P31 in this writ petition. At the time of hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners 4 to 8 have preferred Exts.P47 to P51 Revision Petitions before the 1^st respondent. The said Revision Petitions being statutory in nature, it would be only appropriate that the 1^st respondent considers the same and passes appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Exts.P47 to P51 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Sd/-