The court emphasizes the need for timely consideration of appeals in statutory appointment cases to uphold the rights of qualified candidates.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner, a qualified Teacher, has acquired a preferential right under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of KER . She was appointed on 03.06.2024 as LPST in a long standing LWA vacancy of Smt. Rency Antony.

2. Approval was declined by the Assistant Educational Officer on the ground that a protected Teacher was deployed. The rejection was mechanically affirmed by the District Educational Officer. During 2024-2025, multiple substantive vacancies arose under the same management due to promotion and retirements. Smt. Rency Antony resigned on 05.12.2024 creating an undisputed substantive vacancy. The petitioner was appointed against the said vacancy on

09.12.2024.

3. Again, approval was refused as per Ext.P8 and the said decision was confirmed by Ext.P9, reiterating the earlier ground without adverting to the resignation vacancy. Aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P9 orders, the Manager has filed Ext.P10 Revision Appeal before the 2^nd respondent, which is pending consideration.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5. Notice to respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with, in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

5. The petitioner is a qualified Teacher, who is aggrieved by the denial of statutory re-appointment under Rule 51A , despite availability of vacancies. The petitioner states that against Exts.P8 and P9 orders, the Manager has filed Ext.P10 Revision Appeal. The pendency of Revision Appeal, without any decision thereon, would adversely affect the petitioner.

In the afore facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P10 and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Manager.

Sd/-