Natural justice requires a hearing before denying approval of appointment in educational appointments.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner was appointed as LPST in AISUP School, Manjaly, an aided School under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, on 02.06.2025 against a vacancy arising from the promotion of Smt. K.J.Sini as HM following the retirement of the then HM on 31.05.2025. However, the Assistant Educational Officer declined approval of the appointment citing “want of vacancy.” The Manager preferred an Appeal before the District Educational Officer and the petitioner filed a revision before the Government.

2. The petitioner states that for 2025-2026, the School was sanctioned eight posts of UPST and one HM post reckoned as UPST. Upon promotion of a LPST as HM, the cadre strength required revision to nine UPST posts and consequential sanction of HTV in the LPST cadre. Non- revision of staff fixation resulted in denial of approval. A revision seeking modification of the Staff Fixation Order is pending before the Director. The petitioner continues in service without salary for want of approval. The impugned order was also issued without affording her an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice, contends the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

4. The petitioner states that as per Ext.P5 staff fixation order for the academic year 2025-2026, the School is sanctioned with eight posts of UPST and one post of HM. Upon a retirement on 31.05.2025, the post of HM was filled by promoting seniormost qualified LPST. Consequently, the promotional vacancy that arose ought to have been treated as a regular vacancy in the LPST cadre, warranting approval of the petitioner's appointment.

5. Be that as it may, I find that the Manager has submitted Ext.P6 Revision Petition before the 2^nd respondent in this regard. As a statutory Revision Petition is pending, it would be only just and proper that the revisional authority considers the same and takes appropriate decision in accordance with law.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Manager.

Sd/-