JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The respondents in W.P.(C)No.44138 of 2024 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 27.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the respondents herein, i.e., the 1 st respondent Manager of Jama-ath L.P.School, and the 2 nd respondent Lower Primary School Teacher, seeking the following reliefs; “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same to the extent it approves the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner only on daily wage basis; (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari of any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P7, P8 and P9 and quash the same to the extent it does not approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as LPST on regular basis; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as L.P.S.T on regular basis in the scale of pay and disburse all consequential benefits including arrears of salary; (iv) Declare that Clause 2(ix) of Ext.P2 and Clause 2(7) of Ext.P10 should not be made applicable to the school of the 1 st petitioner in view of setting apart of established vacancy for accommodating a qualified disabled hand any time now remaining unfilled due to non-availability of a qualified disabled hand;” 2. By the judgment dated 27.02.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of that writ petition with the directions contained in the last paragraph of that judgment. Paragraphs 12 to 16 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus; “12. By Ext.P3, the 2 nd petitioner's appointment as LPST with effect from 21.02.2022 was approved only on daily wage basis. Ext.P3 stated that as and when the appointments are made as per reservation norms applicable to physically disabled persons, then the 2 nd petitioner's appointment can be regularised. 13. It is the specific case of the Manager that the Manager had addressed letters to the Special Employment Exchange and the Special Employment Officer has issued Non Availability Certificate stating that competent Persons with Disabilities, are not available for appointment as Teachers in the 1 st petitioner's School. 14. 13. It is the specific case of the Manager that the Manager had addressed letters to the Special Employment Exchange and the Special Employment Officer has issued Non Availability Certificate stating that competent Persons with Disabilities, are not available for appointment as Teachers in the 1 st petitioner's School. 14. Ext.P7 order dated 15.10.2024 was issued by the 1 st respondent. In Ext.P7, there is a specific finding that there are no persons with physical disabilities who are qualified to be given appointment in the 1 st petitioner's School. A direction was given to the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P3 to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner following Ext.P2 G.O.(MS)No.29/2023/GEDN dated 24.03.2023. Subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer has issued Ext.P8 communication to the Manager of the School requiring the Assistant Educational Officer to inform whether the reservation norms were strictly adhered to. 15. It is an admitted position that inspite of various efforts taken by the 1 st petitioner, the Special Employment Exchange was not able to provide physically challenged persons. After Ext.P4, the Manager of the School has issued advertisements in three leading newspapers. However, inspite of the earnest efforts, any physically disabled persons did not came forward with an application for appointment. 16. In such circumstances, the 2 nd petitioner, who is duly appointed through a selection process cannot be condemned to draw salary on daily wage basis. The 2 nd petitioner was appointed on 21.02.2022, more than three years have lapsed since her appointment. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Exts.P3, P7, P8 and P9. There will be a consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as LPST with effect from the date of her initial engagement. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months. Needless to say, the 2 nd petitioner shall also be made available consequential benefits without further delay.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-respondents have filed this writ appeal along with C.M.Application No.1 of 2025 seeking an order to condone the filing delay of 134 days, which was condoned by the order dated 26.08.2025. 4. On 12.09.2025, when the writ appeal came up for admission, it was admitted on file. Respondents-petitioners entered appearance through counsel. This Court passed an order dated 12.09.2025. 4. On 12.09.2025, when the writ appeal came up for admission, it was admitted on file. Respondents-petitioners entered appearance through counsel. This Court passed an order dated 12.09.2025. Paragraph 3 of that order read thus; “3. The learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners would submit that the petitioners propose to file a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 27.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.44138 of 2024, since the challenge made in the writ petition against Exts.P7, P8 and P9 was only to the extent it do not approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner (2 nd respondent herein) as LPST on regular basis, in view of clause (2)(ix) of Ext.P2 and clause (7) of Ext.P10. The learned counsel undertakes that the respondents-petitioners shall not file a contempt case seeking implementation of the judgment dated 27.02.2025, during the pendency of this writ appeal, since any interim order granted in the writ appeal will prevent respondents-petitioners from moving a review petition before the learned Single Judge.” 5. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, respondents have placed on record a copy of Ext.R1(a) order dated 30.10.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the writ appeal and also Ext.R1(b) order dated 04.03.2025 in SLP(C)No.11373 of 2025. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2025 read thus; “2. The above Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 27.02.2025 in W.P.(C)No.44138 of 2024. The learned Single Judge had disposed of W.P.(C)No.44138 of 2024 as per judgment dated 27.02.2025, however while quashing the orders impugned in the Writ Petition, i.e. Exts.P3, P7, P8 and P9, instead of setting aside the said orders to the extent sought for, the same was set aside in full. This fact came to the notice only when the above Writ Appeal was being considered by this Hon'ble Court. Hence I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed seeking correction of the operative portion of the judgment. The learned Single Judge as per order dated 30.10.2025, allowed the application. True copy of order dated 30.10.2025 of this Hon'ble Court in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.44138 of 2024 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). 3. Further the issue regarding appointment of teachers after keeping aside the vacancies earmarked for differently abled persons was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.11373 of 2025 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass order dated 04.03.2025. 3. Further the issue regarding appointment of teachers after keeping aside the vacancies earmarked for differently abled persons was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.11373 of 2025 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass order dated 04.03.2025. True copy of order dated 04.03.2025 in SLP(C)No.11373 of 2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(b).” 6. Heard arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader for appellants-respondents and the learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents would point out a Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms)No.31/2026/GEDN dated 18.02.2026. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of that Government order read thus; 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the appellants shall consider the claim for approval of the appointment of the 2 nd respondent-2 nd petitioner as Lower Primary School Teacher in Jama-ath L.P. School, in terms of the provisions contained in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid Government order dated, 18.02.2026. Based on the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader, this writ appeal is disposed of by directing the 2 nd appellant Assistant Educational Officer to act in terms of the directions contained in the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge, taking note of the provisions contained in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid Government order dated 18.02.2026, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say that consequential monetary benefits shall also be paid to the 1 st respondent petitioner, without any delay.