The court emphasized the need to comply with statutory provisions regarding appointments under the Persons with Disabilities quota, ensuring timely review of pending appeals.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner states that she was appointed as LPST with effect from 17.10.2025 against an established vacancy arising from the resignation of Smt. Karthika T.T., who had earlier been appointed under the Persons with Disabilities quota and whose appointment had been duly approved.

2. The petitioner’s appointment proposal was submitted for approval before the Assistant Educational Officer. However, approval was rejected as per order dated 30.01.2026 stating that the vacancy arose due to the resignation of a Teacher appointed under the Persons with Disabilities quota and therefore, the vacancy ought to have been filled by another candidate from the said category. The said decision is legally unsustainable.

3. As per the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Government Order implementing reservation, appointments for Persons with Disabilities are to be made on the basis of roster points in the Establishment. In the School, the first roster point had already been satisfied by the appointment of Smt. Karthika T.T. and the next reservation arises only at the 26^th vacancy.

4. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 Revision Petition before the Government, which is pending. The continued non-approval of the appointment is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, contends the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with, in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

6. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P4 is highly arbitrary and unsustainable. The 3^rd respondent has failed to appreciate the fact that the vacancy in question arose due to the resignation of Smt. Karthika T.T., who had already been appointed as a Person with Disability, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 .

7. Be that as it may, from the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 Revision Petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 . As the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy, it would be only just and proper that the competent statutory authority considers the same, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P11 Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.