The court emphasizes the necessity for adherence to statutory mandates in teacher appointment processes.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 6665 OF 2026 PETITIONER:

FR.ANSON MECHERY AGED 51 YEARS S/O ANTO K.M, MANAGER, MARY MATHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PANTHALAMPADAM, PANNIYANKARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678683 BY ADVS.

DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM SMT.MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S.

SHRI.ALEX TOM JOSEPH RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEAR TOWN HALL, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001 BY ADV.

SMT.V.A. HARITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is Manager of Mary Matha Higher Secondary School, Panthalampadam, Panniyankara P.O. in Palakkad District. The Manager appointed seven Teachers in established vacancies available in the School. The appointments of the Teachers were rejected by the Controlling Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority. The core issue cited for the rejection of all these appointments is that the Manager failed to appoint a protected Teacher. The reason stated in the impugned orders is factually as well as legally incorrect.

2. The last appointee, Smt.P.R. Asha was accommodated in her parent School with effect from 10.07.2025 consequent to a permanent vacancy arose in her School. Apart from that, the Manager has also executed an affidavit in tune with G.O.(P) No.4/2021/G.Edn dated 06.02.2021 read with Circular No.H2/19500/2019/DGE dated 26.02.2021. Therefore, the orders issued by the Controlling Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority are palpably wrong. The Manager has filed statutory Revision Petitions before the 2^nd respondent which is pending consideration.

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

4. The petitioner has appointed seven Teachers in the established vacancies available in the School. However, the proposal for approval of appointments stands rejected by the Controlling Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P25 to P31 Revision Petitions before the 2^nd respondent.

5. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the revisional authority considers the statutory Revision Petitions and takes appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

2^nd respondent to consider Exts.P25 to P31 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-