The court emphasized timely resolution of revision petitions and the necessity of balancing administrative authority with educational needs.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P25 order issued by the

2^nd respondent. When the said order was challenged before this Court through this writ petition, initially an interim order was issued on 15.01.2026, staying the appointment of the 6^th respondent as a temporary Manager. This Court also directed the DEO, Mavelikkara to act as the Manager of the school in question. However, after the 6^th respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit, a modification was made to the aforementioned interim order. As per the order dated 22.01.2026, the 6^th respondent was found to be continuing as a Manager from 15.11.2024, subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and hence the DEO, who was directed by the earlier order dated 15.01.2024, to take charge, was directed to handover the charge to the 6^th respondent. An observation was however made, that the 6^th respondent, shall not make any permanent appointment to the post of Teacher in the meantime.

2. Both learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and for the 6^th respondent, now concedes that Ext.P28 revision petition is pending before the first respondent. Both of them also concedes that the same has been posted for hearing to 19.02.2026.

3. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for the 6^th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, since the petitioner himself has challenged Ext.P25 before the first respondent as Ext.P28, this writ petition need not be retained before this Court, and a direction can be issued to consider and dispose of Ext.P28 revision petition in a time bound manner.

4. When this proposal was mooted, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the direction not to make any permanent appointment to the post of Teacher in the meantime ought to be retained, till the disposal of the revision. The learned Senior Counsel for the 6^th respondent vehemently opposed the same. Hence arguments were heard on the said question.

5. On a consideration of the records produced in the instant case, as well as Ext.R6(d) dated 14.01.2026, I am of the view that continuance of such a direction restraining the 6^th respondent from making any permanent appointment to the post of Teacher would be prejudicial to the interest of the students as well as that of the school and instead appointment if any made, can be imposed with a condition.

Hence, I am of the view that the said restraint order should not continue further.

6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P28 revision petition filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 6^th respondent. The appointments, if any, made to the post of Teacher by the 6^th respondent, in the meantime, shall be subject to the final outcome of the decision on Ext.P28 and such a condition shall be specified in the appointment letters/ orders issued to any person.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-