JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, by the 3 rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.28535 of 2025, challenging the interim orders dated 01.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. 2. The 1 st respondent herein has filed W.P.(C) No.28535 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P24 order issued by the 4 th respondent. ii. Issue a writ directing the 2 nd respondent to take further action pursuant to Exts.P23 and P27 proceedings extending the period of suspension and to appoint an enquiry officer. iii. Issue a writ declaring that Ext.P24 order is an abuse of the power by the 4 th respondent and is expressly contrary to the provisions of the KER and the directions issued by this Court. iv. Issue a writ declaring that all the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the 3 rd respondent is valid as per KER and the 2 nd respondent is duty bound to initiate further enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the KER. v. Issue writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to initiate appropriate actions against the 4 th respondent for abusive of power and deliberate disobedience to the directions of this Court. vi. To declare that Ext.P23 suspension order issued by the petitioner is through lawful authority and that the petitioner is entitled to continue with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 3 rd respondent. vii. To declare the 4 th respondent has acted in excess of jurisdiction and in malice that, Ext.P24 order is in violation of provisions of the Kerala Education Rules .” 3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial High School, Poozhanad, Thiruvananthapuram, is owned and managed by a Trust having three managing trustees by name N. Surendran, N. Suseelan and N. Subhashithan. There was management dispute between N. Surendran and his brother N. Suseelan. Initially, Shri. Suseelan was the Manager of the school. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial High School, Poozhanad, Thiruvananthapuram, is owned and managed by a Trust having three managing trustees by name N. Surendran, N. Suseelan and N. Subhashithan. There was management dispute between N. Surendran and his brother N. Suseelan. Initially, Shri. Suseelan was the Manager of the school. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28535 of 2025, i.e., N. Surendran, Shri. Suseelan indulged in certain acts of corruption degrading the reputation of the school and the managing trustees decided to remove Shri. Suseelan as the Manager of the school and appointed Shri. N. Surendran as Manager on 02.08.2007 and the same was approved by the District Educational Officer on 30.12.2009. The order was subject to challenge before the Educational Authorities and by Ext.P2 order dated 17.01.2015 issued by the District Educational Officer, Shri.N. Surendran was permitted to continue as the Manager by upholding the decision of the Trust. Ext.P2 order was challenged by Shri. N. Suseelan before the Director of General Education and by the order dated 30.06.2015, the Director of General Education held that Shri. Suseelan would continue as the Manager with effect from 02.08.2007. That order was challenged by Shri. N. Surendran before the Government by filing a revision petition and that revision was allowed by the Government on 02.02.2016 by Ext.P3 order setting aside the order of the Director of General Education. Ext.P3 order passed by the Government was challenged by Shri. Suseelan before this Court in W.P.(C)No.14607 of 2016. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 04.07.2017, this Court directed the Government to reconsider the revision and to take decision within a period of two months. In that judgment it was clarified that “till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo. Approvals and appointments, if any, made in the meanwhile, shall be subject to the result of the decision taken by the Government.” Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the Government considered the revision petition and allowed the same recognizing Shri. Surendran as the Manager of the school by Ext.P5 order dated 20.11.2017. Ext.P5 order was challenged by Shri. Suseelan in W.P.(C)No.38499 of 2017 before this Court and by Ext.P6 interim order dated 30.11.2017, this Court granted a status quo for a period of six weeks. According to Shri. N. Surendran by Ext.P6 order, his status as Manager was directed to continue by this Court. Meanwhile Shri. Suseelan passed away. Ext.P5 order was challenged by Shri. Suseelan in W.P.(C)No.38499 of 2017 before this Court and by Ext.P6 interim order dated 30.11.2017, this Court granted a status quo for a period of six weeks. According to Shri. N. Surendran by Ext.P6 order, his status as Manager was directed to continue by this Court. Meanwhile Shri. Suseelan passed away. As per Ext.P1 Trust Deed, the elder most son of Shri.Suseelan ought to become the member of the trust. In the light of his employment in a school, there is a legal impediment for him to become a member of the Trust. 3.1. The 1 st respondent alleges that the District Educational Officer is taking a hostile attitude towards him and is not ready to accept him as the Manager of the school. Shri. N. Surendran submitted an application before the District Educational Officer by Ext.P7 letter dated 23.11.2019 in respect of an incident, wherein probation of some staffs were declared using the false signature of Shri. Suseelan after his death. To that letter, the District Educational Officer issued Ext.P8 reply dated 28.11.2019 stating that no finality has been attained in the case pertaining to the management of the school and therefore the submission made by Shri. Surendran as Manager is misleading and amounts to dereliction of duty. In the meanwhile, the District Educational Officer denied the id and password of SAMANWAYA Portal to Shri. Surendran and hence Shri. Surendran approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.22218 of 2021, wherein this Court passed Ext.P10 interim order dated 12.11.2021 holding that the “grant of status quo in W.P.(C)No.38499 of 2017 cannot be an embargo on the petitioner acting as Manager of the School, which order stands confirmed by the Government as evident from Ext.P5.” According to the 1 st respondent, Shri. N. Surendran, despite of the specific direction in Ext.P10 interim order, the id and password of SAMANWAYA Portal was further denied to him by the District Educational Officer. Therefore, he filed a further petition before this Court and Ext.P11 interim order dated 25.10.2024 was passed by this Court in that writ petition. 3.2. The appellant herein was appointed to the post of Full Time Menial on 01.12.2014 by Shri.Suseelan. His appointment is under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)No.25581 of 2018. Therefore, he filed a further petition before this Court and Ext.P11 interim order dated 25.10.2024 was passed by this Court in that writ petition. 3.2. The appellant herein was appointed to the post of Full Time Menial on 01.12.2014 by Shri.Suseelan. His appointment is under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)No.25581 of 2018. Pursuant to Exts.P14 to P16 complaints received, Shri. Surendran initiated Disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and Ext.P20 charge memo dated 21.06.2024 was issued to him referring to the complaints from students, teachers and parents. In continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, Shri. Surendran issued Ext.P23 order dated 28.05.2025 suspending the appellant from the school. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the appellant approached the District Educational Officer with a representation dated 30.05.2025. The District Educational officer issued Ext.P24 order dated 04.06.2025 stating that Shri. Surendran cannot act as the manager of the school. In Ext.P24, it is stated that upon enquiry, it is learnt that an order had been issued by the Deputy Director of Education disqualifying Shri. Surendran from acting as the Manager of any aided school in the State of Kerala. It is also stated therein that certain disputes regarding the school management are pending before this Court. Being aggrieved by Ext.P24 order, Shri. Surendran submitted Ext.P26 representation dated 06.06.2025 to the District Educational Officer pointing out that under Rule 67 of the Kerala Education Rules , the District Educational Officer does not possess the authority to revoke the suspension directly. Therefore, Shri. Surendran issued Ext.P27 order dated 11.06.2025 clarifying that it was not administratively feasible to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry while allowing the appellant to remain on duty, as his presence would potentially influence the outcome of the enquiry. Thereafter, he approached this Court with the present writ petition. 4. On 01.08.2025, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed the following order; "Admit. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the 1 st and 2 nd respondent. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the 3 rd and 4 th respondent. In view of Ext.P10 and P11 orders, where the right of the present manager to continue as such, is recognized and upheld, I find a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner with regard to the challenge against sustainability of the findings in Ext.P24. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the 3 rd and 4 th respondent. In view of Ext.P10 and P11 orders, where the right of the present manager to continue as such, is recognized and upheld, I find a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner with regard to the challenge against sustainability of the findings in Ext.P24. Therefore there shall be interim order, staying the operation of Ext.P24, with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for extension of order of suspension of 3 rd respondent on merits and pass orders, as if the application is submitted by a competent manager. Till such time, the impact of Ext.P23 order of suspension will continue." 5. On 14.08.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the following order; "The officer who issued Exhibit P28 order shall file an affidavit explaining the reasons for issuing Exhibit P28 order, treating the writ petition herein as not the Manager of the school, whereas in the interim order passed on 01-08-2025 the specific direction to the 2 nd respondent was to consider the application of the petitioner for extension of the order of suspension on merits and pass orders as if the application was submitted by a competent Manager. Post on 12-09-2025. Exhibit P28 order shall stand stayed, and the impact of Exhibit P23 order of suspension will continue irrespective of Exhibit P28 order." 6. Contending that both the above interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge are in effect granting the final reliefs, the appellant-3 rd respondent is now before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Ext.P28 order dated 06.06.2025 was passed by the District Educational Officer in pursuance to the first interim order of the learned Single Judge. Without challenging Ext.P28 order, the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned Single Judge did not consider the same while passing the second interim order dated 14.08.2025. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Ext.P28 order dated 06.06.2025 was passed by the District Educational Officer in pursuance to the first interim order of the learned Single Judge. Without challenging Ext.P28 order, the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned Single Judge did not consider the same while passing the second interim order dated 14.08.2025. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-writ petitioner would submit that the first interim order specifically directed the District Educational Officer to consider the application submitted by Shri. N. Surendran for extension of the suspension order of the appellant on merits and pass orders as if the application is submitted by the competent manager. It is bypassing that direction Ext.P28 order was passed by the District Educational officer. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that maintainability of the writ petition is a matter that has to be decided in the writ petition since Ext.P28 order is passed by the District Educational Officer as directed in the writ petition by way of an interim order. Against Ext.P28 order, revision is maintainable before the Government under Rule 92 of chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules . 10. Against Ext.P28 order, revision is maintainable before the Government under Rule 92 of chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules . 10. Rule 92 of chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules reads thus: “ Rule 92 Revision :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government, may on their own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, revise any order passed by a subordinate authority in respect of matters contained in this Chapter which is made or is appealable under these Rules:- (a) confirm modify or set aside the order; (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as they consider proper in the circumstances of the case or (d) pass such other order as they deem fit; Provided that - (i) an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty provided that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the enquiry; (ii) if the Government propose to impose any of the penalities specified in items (iv) to (viii) of Rule 65 on a case where an inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such penalty pass such orders as they deem fit. Explanation :- For the purpose of this proviso and sub rule (2) the person concerned shall include the Manager of a School whose orders are sought to be revised by the Government. (2) Nothing contained in the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to require the Government to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the person concerned and it shall be sufficient if:- (i) Where the Government propose to revise an order on their own motion, a copy of the grounds on which the order is proposed to be revised. (2) Nothing contained in the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to require the Government to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the person concerned and it shall be sufficient if:- (i) Where the Government propose to revise an order on their own motion, a copy of the grounds on which the order is proposed to be revised. (ii) Where the Government propose to revise an order in pursuance of a revision petition filed by a party, a copy of the revision petition is furnished to the person concerned along with a notice requiring him to make representation, if any, in the matter in writing a period specified in the notice and the Government pass final orders in revision after consideration of such representation.” 11. We have carefully gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record. Admittedly, there is managership dispute in between the 1 st respondent and his sibling, namely, Shri. N. Suseelan. However, the said Suseelan is no more at present and the dispute now appears as in between Shri. Surendran, the 1 st respondent and the son of Shri. Suseelan. The appellant herein is a Full Time Menial of the school. The disciplinary proceedings against him was initiated by Shri. Surendran and the appellant contend that Shri. Surendran has no right to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the him. 12. While going through the fact that Ext.P28 order of the 2 nd respondent is passed in pursuance to the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge and there is a provision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of KER to file revision against Exts.P24 and P28 orders, which according to the appellant is raised in his counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, we are of the view that at this interim stage there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant can raise all these contentions before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. In such circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of, making it clear that the further interim orders, if any necessary to be passed before the final disposal of the writ petition, may be passed by the learned Single Judge, by taking into consideration the contentions raised by the parties, especially the maintainability of the writ petition, on merits.