The court requires statutory petitions to be considered promptly, ensuring adherence to educational regulations regarding promotions.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner entered service in the School as HSA (Malayalam) from 01.06.2011. Being qualified, the petitioner was granted promotion as HM from 01.06.2025. Its approval was, however, declined by the DEO. Appeal was moved before the 2^nd respondent. The DDE however rejected Ext.P4.

2. Ordinarily, Ext.P5 is to be assailed by the Manager through Samanwaya. But, it is not certain whether it would be taken up in revision appeal on time. Hence, the petitioner moved the Government with revision petition dated 05.02.2026. It is maintainable as per Ext.P6(a) judgment. Approval to the promotion of the petitioner as HM is declined both by the DEO as well as DDE on the specious plea of want of approved seniority list.

3. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is duly qualified for the post of High School HM. There are no other qualified senior hands under the Management for the HM post. Necessary declaration in that behalf is furnished by the Manager. In identical circumstances, the 4^th respondent has granted approval to the promotion of another incumbent under the same Management as HM on the strength of declaration by the Manager as per order dated 10.05.2024.

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

5. The petitioner would argue that the impugned orders declining approval of the petitioner's promotion as Headmaster is illegal as those orders are issued solely on the alleged non-approval of the seniority list, in spite of the fact that the Manager has furnished a statutory declaration regarding non-availability of any other qualified senior hand.

6. Be that as it may, from the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1^st respondent invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of KER . As Ext.P6 is a statutory revision petition, it would be only just and proper 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 therefore 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/-