1. Both these writ petitions revolve around the same dispute and hence they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are described/marked in W.P.(C) No.30460/2025 (unless otherwise specified), for convenience.

2. The petitioner was appointed as HST (Mathematics) in an Aided School managed by the 5th respondent. The School is under the corporate agency of St. Thomas Marthoma Church which is declared as a minority institution covered under Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act.

3. The petitioner was appointed as HST (Mathematics) on 02.06.1997. While continuing so, the petitioner was appointed as HSST and he worked as such from 31.08.2004 to 31.05.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed as HST (Mathematics). On 20.09.2017, the petitioner was once again appointed as HSST (Mathematics).

4. The post of Principal became vacant in the School on 30.04.2025 and the petitioner was appointed as Principal as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner had more than 12 years teaching experience as HSST under the same educational agency when he was promoted as Principal on 02.05.2025. The 6th respondent, who is working as HSST (Physics) raised objection over the promotion of the petitioner as Principal.

5. However, the Manager forwarded proposal to appoint the petitioner as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. By Ext.P4 communication dated 03.06.2025, the Deputy Director of Education rejected the proposal to appoint the petitioner as Drawing and Disbursing Officer on the ground that the petitioner does not have 12 years continuous service as HSST for promoting him as Principal. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P4, invoking Rule 8A Chapter XIVA KER, on 09.06.2025. Ext.P5 appeal is pending.

6. This Court, in W.P.(C) No.28946/2025, by judgment dated 05.08.2025, directed the Director of General Education to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 appeal within a period of two months. The 6th respondent filed W.P. (C) No.19642/2025 and this Court, by Ext.P8 judgment dated 27.05.2025, directed the Regional Deputy Director to issue notice to the parties and take a decision on the proposal for the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the School.

7. The Deputy Director of General Education (Higher Secondary), Chengannur passed Ext.P7 order dated 12.08.2025 approving the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal with effect from 14.07.2025. The petitioner states that the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Principal was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education (Higher Secondary) as per Ext.P11 order dated 11.07.2025 without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon preferred Ext.P12 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education invoking Rule 8A Chapter XIVA KER on 18.08.2025.

8. The Manager of the School, without awaiting for the outcome of the appeal, promoted the 6th respondent as Principal as per Ext.P13 order dated 14.07.2025 and directed the petitioner to handover all records, registers, movable and immovable properties to the 6th respondent immediately. Ext.P13 order dated 14.07.2025 was followed by Ext.P14 office order promoting the 6th respondent. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by Exts.P7, P13 and P14 orders.

9. The petitioner states that he was granted promotion as Principal pressing into service the right of the management under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed under Rule 6 Chapter XXXII KER. The petitioner has more than 12 years of teaching experience at Higher Secondary level. The Rule does not require that 12 years experience at the Higher Secondary level should be continuous.

10. As the School is a minority institution, promotion to the post of Principal need not be based on seniority. The action of the 3rd respondent in declining the request of the Manager to appoint the petitioner as Drawing and Disbursing Officer is illegal and unsustainable. Approval granted to the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal is unsustainable. Exts.P7, P13 and P14 are therefore liable to be set aside.

11. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31391/2025 is a member of the School Board which manages St. Thomas Higher Secondary School, Kozhenchery. The member of the School Board states that the School is owned and managed by the St. Thomas Marthoma Church, Kozhenchery and that the School is governed by Ext.P1 constitution approved by the Church. The petitioner was appointed as Principal as he fulfills all the statutory and academic requirements. The 3rd respondent-Regional Deputy Director has now approved the appointment of the 6th respondent arbitrarily and illegally. In the appointment of the 6th respondent, the Manager of the School acted unilaterally, bypassing the Board and misrepresenting facts before the statutory authorities.

12. The member of the Board submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Principal as the School is a minority institution. The 6th respondent was appointed as Principal clandestinely without the knowledge, approval or consent of the Board. Ext.P1 constitution would show that the School has to be managed by the School Board and the Manager has to discharge his duties as directed by the School Board.

13. The School Board has decided to appoint the petitioner as the Principal. The Manager, however, acted defying the directions of the School Board. The valuable rights of the petitioner will be infringed if the arbitrary approach adopted by the 5th respondent is allowed to be sustained. In short, the petitioner-Member in W.P.(C) No.31391/2025 is supporting the cause of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30460/2025.

14. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 5th respondent stated that the 6th respondent was appointed as Principal for the better organisation and development of the School. The appointment was made exercising rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The 6th respondent took charge as Principal and is currently discharging the duties of the Principal. After hearing the parties, the 3rd respondent, by order dated 11.07.2025, has rejected the approval request for appointment of the petitioner as Principal for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the required eligibility of mandatory 12 years of continuous Higher Secondary teaching experience.

15. The 6th respondent also filed a counter affidavit. The 6th respondent stated that the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.30460/2025 suppressing material facts. The 6th respondent joined service as HSST Junior on 15.01.2000. The appointment was approved with effect from 15.07.2000 as HSST Senior. The 6th respondent is the 5th seniormost Teacher in the Higher Secondary School. Rank Nos.1 to 4 relinquished their claim for appointment as Principal. Hence, the petitioner being the next seniormost HSST, was appointed as Principal.

16. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader representing the State of Kerala and the respective learned counsel appearing for the Manager of the School and the 6th respondent.

17. The petitioner was initially appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary School as per Ext.P1 order dated 02.05.2025 of the Manager. By Ext.P4 order dated 03.06.2025, the Deputy Director of Education rejected the request for appointing the petitioner as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Thereafter, the Manager appointed the 6th respondent as the Principal. The said appointment was approved as per Ext.P7 order dated 12.08.2025 of the Deputy Director of Education.

18. The Deputy Director of Education has passed Ext.P11 order dated 11.07.2025 holding that the proceedings of the Manager appointing the petitioner as Principal are irregular. Th petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 revision petition which is pending considering before the Deputy Director of Education.

19. The petitioner would argue that his appointment as Principal is legally justified and rejection of approval to the said appointment on the ground that the petitioner does not have 12 years continuous service as HSST, is unsustainable since Rule 6 Chapter XXXII KER does not mandate that the 12 year experience in the Higher Secondary sector should be continuous one. I find that the petitioner has already invoked his statutory revisional remedy against Ext.P11 order, which is pending consideration. As the statutory revision petition is pending, I am not inclined to adjudicate on that aspect in these writ petitions.

20. If the petitioner is held to be disqualified for appointment as Principal, then unless those findings are reversed by a competent authority / court, the petitioner cannot legally impugn Exts.P13 and P14 orders. For the said reason also, I find that the writ petitions are without merit.

21. The petitioners would contend that the School Board had decided to appoint the petitioner as Principal and the Manager, disregarding the decision of the Board, has given appointment to the 6th respondent. It is to be noted that W.P.(C) No.31391/2025 is not filed by the School Board. It is filed by one member of the Board. After hearing the parties on either side, I find that there are some disputes in the matter of management of the School within the School Board. Such disputes within the Board cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the Board is not an instrumentality of the State. The petitioners will have to invoke other available remedies for the said purpose.

                  The writ petitions are therefore without any merit and hence dismissed.