JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) [WP(C) Nos.44007/2024 & 10829/2025] In W.P.(C) No.44007 of 2024, the petitioner states that the 5 th respondent has conducted a selection process for filling up the vacancies of Full Time Menials in Devaswom Board Schools as per the guidelines framed by this Court in DBP No.8 of 2009 by judgment dated 19.11.2009. 2. In the said selection proceedings the petitioner has rank No.10. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Menial in Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School, Thakazhy as Full Time Menial with effect from 20.06.2023 onwards. However, by Ext.P10 order, the 4 th respondent has rejected approval for the appointment on the ground that the said appointment was hit by the requirement of appointing physically challenged persons and also that the appointment of the promotee, in whose promotion vacancy the petitioner was appointed, is not approved. 3. Ext.P11 approval order would show that a physically challenged person was appointed and the said appointment was approved. Further, going by the judgments and the law laid down therein as evidenced by Exts.P5 to P9, there is a statutorily fixed post of Full Time Menial available in Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School, Thakazhy as per the provisions contained in Rule 1 of Chapter XXIVA KER. 4. Further, Ext.P4 would show that the petitioner is the only Full Time Menial working in Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School, Thakazhy doing all the menial works with effect from 20.06.2023 onwards. That being so, despite lapse of more than one and half years, his appointment has not been approved. The 4 th respondent was bound in law to follow the law laid down by this Court in Exts.P5 to P9 judgments and the omission in this regard is arbitrary and illegal, contends the petitioner. 5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10829/2025 states that he was appointed as Full Time Menial in Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School, Thakazhy with effect from 04.10.2021 onwards as per Ext.P1 appointment order in the promotion vacancy of one Sri. Harishankar P. as Office Attendant. 6. However, the 4 th respondent has rejected approval for the same by Ext.P2 order on the ground that the promotion of Sri. Harishankar was not approved. Going by the provisions contained in Rule 1 Chapter XXIVA KER, the post of Full Time Menial is an essential post and without the said post the School could not be managed. 6. However, the 4 th respondent has rejected approval for the same by Ext.P2 order on the ground that the promotion of Sri. Harishankar was not approved. Going by the provisions contained in Rule 1 Chapter XXIVA KER, the post of Full Time Menial is an essential post and without the said post the School could not be managed. As Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School, Thakazhy was a big school, there was no justification for denying approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial on the technical ground that the promotion vacancy was not established. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Office Attendant and posted in the transfer vacancy of one Sri. Kiran K. in Devaswom Board Upper Primary School, Changamkary by Ext.P3 order, with effect from 20.06.2023 onwards. However, the 5 th respondent has rejected Ext.P3 promotion of the petitioner under Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA KER as per Ext.P5 order, on the ground that the School was an uneconomic School and therefore, a protected hand / daily wage hand ought to have been appointed. 8. Further, by Ext.P4 order, the transfer vacancy was clearly established in the said School. The issue in question has been specifically covered by Exts.P6 and P7 rulings of this Court. 9. Again, by virtue of Ext.P13 judgment of this Court in Secretary, Corporate Management of Schools under the Society of the Order of Sacred Transfiguration, Pathanapuram v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (2) KHC 46 ], this Court was pleased to hold that the operation of a claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER could not be interdicted by provisions contained in a Government Order dated 12.01.2010. Further, by virtue of Ext.P12 judgment, this Court was pleased to hold that a statutory claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER could not be whittled down by way of the provisions contained in a Government Order. 10. Ext.P5 order has directly infringed the law laid down by this Court and the petitioner being a Rule 43 claimant was entitled to be appointed as Office Attendant in Devaswom Board Upper Primary School, Changamkary in preference to a protected hand. Therefore Ext.P3 appointment of the petitioner is liable to be approved as Office Attendant with effect from 20.06.2023 onwards. Denial of the same by Ext.P5 order is per se unsustainable and untenable, contends the petitioner. 11. Therefore Ext.P3 appointment of the petitioner is liable to be approved as Office Attendant with effect from 20.06.2023 onwards. Denial of the same by Ext.P5 order is per se unsustainable and untenable, contends the petitioner. 11. Moreover, by virtue of Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P11, the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial with effect from 04.10.2021 was also liable to be approved. The 6 th respondent ought to have challenged the above orders and has resulted in denial of salary and allowances to the petitioner with effect from 04.10.2021 onwards in the post of Full Time Menial and 20.06.2023 onwards in the post of Office Attendant, though he had been regularly attending to the duties in the School. Aggrieved, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P15 Revision Petition before the 1 st respondent, contends the petitioner. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.44007/2024 and respondents 1 to 5 in W.P.(C) No.10829/2025 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.44007/2024 and the 6 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.10829/2025. 13. As the petitioners have preferred Ext.P12 Revision Petition in W.P.(C) No.44007/2024 and Ext.P15 Revision Petition in W.P.(C) No.10829/2025, it would be only appropriate in the facts of the case that the revisional authority considers both the Revision Petitions together and take appropriate decision thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P12 Revision Petition in W.P.(C) No.44007/2024 and Ext.P15 Revision Petition in W.P.(C) No.10829/2025 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the Manager and affected parties, if any.