JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is the Corporate Manager of Catholicate & MD Schools, Kottayam, having many Aided Schools in terms of the Kerala Educational Act and Rules, in the State of Kerala. 2. The Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2015 requires 4% reservation in appointments for differently abled hands. It is made applicable to the Aided Schools as well. The turn of appointments is also prescribed as 1, 26, 51, and 76 for differently abled hands. In compliance, the petitioner has set apart eversomany posts so as to accommodate differently abled hands. 3. It is evident that the petitioner has complied with the requirements covered by Exts.P1 and P2. The Employment Exchange concerned is busy with the processing of candidates for the posts reported by the petitioner. Yet, the other appointments effected by the petitioner as against regular posts under the Management are not processed by the Educational Officer concerned for want of physical inductment of qualified differently abled hands for the posts covered by reservation. In the meanwhile, any number of appointments effected by the petitioner under the management are pending approval. 4. It was in similar circumstances that the NSS management moved the Hon’ble Apex Court and got Order dated 04.03.2025. Consequently, Government issued Order dated 17.03.2025. But it would appear that Ext.P4 is applicable only in respect of the Schools under the NSS Management. In fairness, the benefits flowing from Exts.P3 and P4 ought to have been made applicable in respect of the appointments under the managements that are similarly situated. 5. This Court in Central Finance and Investments and another v. Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality and others , 2021 (6) KHC 56 , has held that a judgment would be of binding nature for administrative and quasi-judicial authorities. In Somukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala , 1997 KHC 114 , it has been held that when the Supreme Court as well as this Court successively upheld the claims of the persons like the petitioner who did not approach the Courts for the redressal of their grievances, there is absolutely no justification for the Government to deny all the consequential benefits as declared by the Supreme Court to the petitioners. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the benefits flowing from Exts.P3 and P4 cannot be denied to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner moved the Government with representation dated 09.04.2025. 6. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the benefits flowing from Exts.P3 and P4 cannot be denied to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner moved the Government with representation dated 09.04.2025. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. The approval to the Teachers appointed by the petitioner was not granted on regular basis on the ground that Persons with Disabilities were not properly accommodated as per reservation entitlement. Now that this Court has passed Ext.P6, the issue has to be re-looked by the respondents. 8. In the afore facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of four months.