Procedural fairness must be upheld in employment matters, especially concerning appointment approvals and revisions.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as HST (Natural Science) with effect from 26.07.2021 in the vacancy of Smt. Meenakumari, HST (Natural Science), who retired from service on 31.05.2021. Initially, the appointment was approved for the period from 01.11.2021 to 31.03.2022 on daily wages as per Ext.P1 order. The Manager preferred a revision before the 2^nd respondent against Ext.P1 order and approval was ordered on regular basis with effect from 26.07.2021.

2. In the year 2021-2022, the Schools in the State were re-opened on 01.11.2021 as per Exts.P13 and P14 orders. KER Chapter VII Rule 2A defines the Academic Year as “Academic Year shall be deemed to commence on the re-opening day and terminate on the last day before summer vacation.”

3. The 1^st respondent had issued Ext.P6 order and it was ordered that 1:40 ratio in 9^th and 10^th Standards is extended for the year 2022-2023 for retaining the existing Teachers. During the year 2021-2022, it was sanctioned 10 divisions in the High School section and the same divisions were sanctioned during the year 2022-2023 by implementing 1:40 ratio. Even though 10 divisions were sanctioned and retained one Smt. Praseetha Kumari. P, HST (Hindi) during the year 2022-2023, the same benefit was not awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was retrenched with effect from 15.07.2022 and re-appointed with effect from 01.06.2023 in an additional vacancy which was sanctioned during the year 2022-2023.

4. The revision which was submitted by the Manager of the School before the 2^nd respondent was rejected as per Ext.P12 order. Aggrieved on Ext.P12 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P16 revision petition before the 1^st respondent and the same is pending. Undue delay in its consideration would result in extreme hardships to the petitioner, contends the petitioner.

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

6. The petitioner seeks to command the 4^th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner and grant the attendant benefits forthwith. I find that as against Exts.P11 and P12, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P16 revision petition invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of KER.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P16 revision petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-