Court emphasizes the necessity of reconsideration in light of government orders affecting the approval process of appointments under the RPWD Act.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2026 The petitioners state that the 1^st petitioner is the approved Manager of an Aided School functioning under the jurisdiction of respondents 1 to 5. Petitioners 2 to 4 are Upper Primary School Teachers, who have been appointed to substantive vacancies. As per Exts.P1 to P3, their appointments have been approved only on a daily wage basis by the 5^th respondent.

2. The petitioners state that the same is on the premise that insofar as the appointment of the 7^th respondent as Junior Language Teacher (Hindi) in the School of the 1^st petitioner is concerned, who is a person with 40% disability having low vision in relation to both his eyes, the same has been cancelled by the Additional Director General of Education as per order dated 02.04.2025 and therefore the vacancy of the person with disability at the School of the 1^st petitioner is remaining unfilled. Consequently, the appointment of petitioners 2 to 4 cannot be approved on a regular basis from their initial dates of appointments at par with Clause ix of Ext.P8.

3. The petitioners further submitted that the

1^st petitioner, Manager, has clearly and validly complied with the provisions of the RPWD Act in so far as the School is concerned. The 6^th respondent had recommended the 7^th respondent for the appointment of person with disability candidate in the School of the 1^st petitioner and the 1^st petitioner had interviewed the 7^th respondent and had also appointed him. The 5^th respondent, as per Ext.P4 had approved the said appointment. Thus, in the 1^st petitioner’s school, the RPWD Act has been fully complied with and there is absolutely nothing more to be performed/done by the 1^st petitioner. Petitioners 2 to 4 have submitted Ext.P13 representation before respondents 1 and 2 and the same is pending consideration. Exts.P6 to P8 and P11 and P12 clinch the issue in favour of the petitioners. However, the 3^rd respondent has issued Ext.P14 by distorting the facts. Seeking to quash Ext.P14 and for other relief, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 6. I have also heard the learned Counsel for the 7^th respondent.

5. The petitioners would urge that Ext.P5 cannot be a reason to deny the legitimate claims of petitioners 2 to 4 for being granted approval of their appointments from the initial dates of their appointment, as has been done in Exts.P1 to P3. Ext.P11 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Ext.P12 judgment of the Single Judge of this Court are in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners are also entitled to similar relief.

6. I find that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the Government of Kerala has issued Ext.P20 G.O(M.S.)No.31/2026/GEDN dated 18.02.2026, whereby the Government of Kerala has extended the benefit of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.11373 of 2024 dated 04.03.2025 to all Schools in Kerala on certain conditions stipulated in Ext.P20.

7. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that in the light of the latest order passed by the Government of Kerala, Ext.P13 representation of the petitioners is liable to be reconsidered.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside Ext.P14 in the light of Ext.P20 Government Order dated 18.02.2026 and directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider Ext.P13 revision petition / representation filed by the petitioners. A decision shall be taken within a period of three months.

Sd/-