Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022, which was one filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Chathannoor; a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the management of Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School alone has the right to appoint a person of its choice in the school and not the Manager, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew [(2017) 15 SCC 595]; and a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Ext.P4 proceedings dated 31.06.2021 and Ext.P7 proceedings dated 12.06.2021 of the 1st respondent Manager are illegal, arbitrary and against Ext.P18 bye-law of the corporate body managing Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner, who was appointed as U.P. School Assistant (later redesignated as U.P. School Teacher) in Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School on 19.12.1990, is the seniormost U.P. School Teacher (UPST) as per Ext.P1 seniority list prepared as on 01.01.2021. Since the incumbent holding the post of the Headmaster is retiring on 31.05.2021, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 31.05.2021 before the 1st respondent Manager (the then Manager) claiming promotion as the Headmistress of the school, under Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). She has also preferred Ext.P3 representation dated 31.05.2021 before the Headmaster of the school. According to the petitioner, though Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School is under corporate management, the 1st respondent Manager had individually taken a decision to promote the 2nd respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, as the Headmistress of the school.

2.1. The 1st respondent Manager issued Ext.P4 proceedings dated 31.06.2021, whereby the 2nd respondent was promoted as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021. Based on Ext.P4 proceedings, the 1st respondent Manager issued Ext.P5 appointment order, which is one dated 01.06.2021, whereby the 2nd respondent was appointed as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021. The document marked as Ext.P5(a) is a copy of the appointment order dated 01.06.2021, wherein it is stated as follows;

                  “Certified as ‘Minority School’ by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions.”

                  Challenging the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 memorandum of appeal dated 01.06.2021 before the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer, Chathannoor.

                  2.2. The 1st respondent Manager issued Ext.P7 proceedings dated 12.06.2021, wherein it is stated that the 2nd respondent is promoted as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021, on the strength of the minority status given to the school vide order C.-F-No.3014 of 2012-14983 dated 28.05.2014 of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution. The 1st respondent Manager submitted Ext.P8 proposal dated 12.06.2021 before the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer, Chathannoor, for approval of the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021. The proposal for approval of the appointment of the 2nd respondent was rejected by the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer, vide Ext.P9 order dated 29.06.2021, stating the delay in submission of the proposal, and that the approved seniority list is not submitted along with the proposal, and that correct date is not recorded in the affidavit sworn to by the Manager and the appointee.

                  2.3. Even before the issuance of Ext.P9 order, the 1st respondent Manager had approached the 5th respondent Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, with an application dated 25.06.2021, to condone the delay in submitting the proposal for the approval of the appointment of the 2nd respondent. Based on that application, the 5th respondent Deputy Director of Education issued Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2021, whereby the delay in submitting the said proposal was condoned, and the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer was directed to consider approval for the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, subject to the provisions contained in Rules 44, 45 and 45B of Chapter XIVA of KER, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the Government orders governing the field.

                  2.4. Even before the issuance of Ext.P10 order, the 1st respondent Manager preferred a memorandum of appeal dated 09.07.2021 before the 4th respondent District Education Officer, Kollam, against Ext.P9 order dated 29.06.2021 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer. In that appeal, the 4th respondent District Education Officer passed Ext.P11 order dated 31.08.2021, whereby the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer was directed to consider the approval for the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, after the 1st respondent Manager obtaining the orders of the 5th respondent Deputy Director of Education, condoning the delay in submission of the proposal, in case the proposal for approval for the appointment is in order in all other respects.

                  2.5. Against the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, the petitioner preferred appeals dated 11.06.2021, 05.07.2021 and 12.07.2021 before the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer and the 4th respondent District Education Officer. Since those appeals were not considered, she preferred Ext.P12 appeal dated 05.07.2021 before the 5th respondent Deputy Director of Education. While so, the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer issued Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021, whereby approval has been granted for the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021, after taking note of Ext.P15 judgment dated 27.01.2020 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.105 of 2019 and connected matters, and the order of status quo granted by the Apex Court in Ext.P16 order dated 17.06.2020 in SLP(C) Diary No.12310 of 2020.

                  2.6. In the writ petition, it is contended that, Ext.P13 order passed by the 3rd respondent Assistant Education Officer suffers from more than one illegality. One of the contentions of the 1st respondent Manager is that being a minority institution, the Manager has absolute right to appoint the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school. According to the petitioner, even if the school is a minority institution, a selection has to be conducted by the 1st respondent Manager before overlooking the seniority of the petitioner in Ext.P1 seniority list. The order of status quo issued by the Apex Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal will not enable the 1st respondent Manager to promote the 2nd respondent, in preference to the petitioner, in view of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, substituted vide the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Rules, 2021, notified vide Ext.P14 notification dated 05.01.2021, which came into force with effect from 30.04.2011, whereby it is provided that teachers who are otherwise eligible for being promoted as the Head teachers shall be exempted from passing such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules, on or after attaining the age of 50 years. In view of Ext.P14 notification, the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years is exempted from passing such departmental tests, etc. The question as to whether exemption could be granted based on Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules was the issue before this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.105 of 2019 and connected matters, and the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P15 judgment dated 27.01.2020 held that unless the teachers acquire test qualifications within three years, they shall not be promoted to the post of Head Teachers. That judgment was rendered before Ext.P14 amendment made to the said Rules. In SLP(C) Diary No.12310 of 2020 filed against Ext.P15 judgment, the Apex Court granted Ext.P16 order of status quo. In O.A.No.441 of 2021 pending before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the State filed Ext.P17 reply statement dated 30.07.2021, wherein the State has taken a stand that promotions to the post of Headmistress have to be effected on the basis of the amendment made to the Rules vide Ext.P14 notification. Therefore, in the writ petition, it is contended that Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer is liable to be quashed to the extent the petitioner is denied promotion to the post of Headmistress. In the writ petition, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy and others v. State of Kerala and others [2006 (4) KLT 264] and the judgment of the Division Bench in Manager, MMLP School, Panayappilly v. V.B. Sajitha and others [2014 (2) KLT 367]. We notice that the above decision of the Division Bench is reversed by the Apex Court in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew [(2017) 15 SCC 595].

3. On 29.05.2024, when W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge admitted the matter on file. The 1st respondent Manager (the then Manager) filed a counter affidavit dated 07.03.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R1A to R1M documents. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 28.10.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(e) documents. The 4th respondent District Educational Officer filed a counter affidavit dated 18.02.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. The present Manager of the school, who was impleaded as additional 8th respondent, filed a counter affidavit dated 18.06.2023, producing therewith Ext.R8 document. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 22.04.2023 to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, producing therewith Ext.P19 document; and a reply affidavit dated 22.11.2023 to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, producing therewith Exts.P20 and P21 documents.

4. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2025, dismissed W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022, declining interference on the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school and the consequential approval of the said appointment by the Educational Authorities. Paragraph 9 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

                  “9. As stated earlier one of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that she is senior to the 2nd respondent going by Ext.P1 and ought to have been appointed as the Headmistress of the school. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the appointment of the 2nd respondent was by the Manager and not by the management committee, and therefore per se illegal and liable to be interfered with. An important aspect to be noted is that by Ext.P13 the appointment of the 2nd respondent is approved as early as on 20.09.2021. The petitioner has not preferred any statutory appeal or challenged the same in any other proceedings except challenging the same in this writ petition which was filed only on 08.08.2022 i.e., after a lapse of almost six months. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that the school is a minority run institution, and that admittedly the management has every right to appoint a qualified teacher of their choice as the Headmistress and appointed the 2nd respondent herein. The contention of the petitioner is that the appointment of the 2nd respondent is the sole decision of the 1st respondent Manager. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is specifically contended that notice regarding the appointment of the Headmistress was brought to the notice of all the committee members as per Ext.R1(a) and due to covid pandemic the notice was issued through WhatsApp and as per Exts.R1(a) to R1(f) opinions of the committee members was also obtained and on the basis of the majority decision the 2nd respondent is appointed. It is pertinent to note that even the petitioner who was a management committee member has given her opinion as Ext.R1(l). In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Headmistress was sole decision of the 1st respondent Manager cannot be accepted, and it is to be held that it was a decision taken out on the basis of the majority opinion of the management committee members. The Division Bench of this Court in Unnikrishnan’s case cited supra has also categorically held that a member of the managing body who was working as teacher in the school cannot stake a claim the post of Headmaster of that school, and therefore the petitioner being a management committee member cannot claim for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress. Though the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in James Mathew’s case cited supra which held that it is the management of the minority institution who is to make appointment of Headmaster, the said decision has categorically held that there is absolutely no obligation for the minority institution to appoint the available senior qualified member of the same community, and since the appointment of the Headmaster depends upon the assessment of candidate’s outlook, philosophy and ability to implement objects of the minority institution, even the members of the same community have to yield to right of management under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions, and further held that once the management of the minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person to lead the institution either as a Headmaster/Principal, the Court cannot go into the merits of the choice or the rationality or propriety of the process of choice, and that in this regard the right under Article 30(1) is absolute.

                  In the light of the discussion as above no interference is called for on the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Headmistress and the consequential approval of the said appointment by the educational authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”

5. Challenging the judgment dated 10.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022, the appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

6. On 16.01.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, it was admitted on file. Respondents 1, 2 and 8 entered appearance through respective counsel and the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 3 to 7.

7. In the writ appeal, the 1st respondent filed an objection dated 02.08.2025, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(h) documents; and the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 09.08.2025. The appellant-petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 08.09.2025 to the objection filed by the 1st respondent and the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent.

8. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 7 and also the learned counsel for the 8th respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner failed to challenge Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, whereby approval has been granted for the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021, by availing the statutory remedy provided under KER, and that the writ petition challenging the said order was belatedly filed on 08.08.2022, after the lapse of almost six months, is legally unsustainable, as the petitioner was waiting for the disposal of Exts.P2 representation dated 31.05.2021 made before the 1st respondent Manager (the then Manager), Ext.P3 representation dated 31.05.2021 made before the Headmaster of the school, Ext.P6 appeal dated 01.06.2021 filed before the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer and Ext.P12 appeal dated 05.07.2021 filed before the 5th respondent Deputy Director of Education. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner, being a member of the Managing Committee, cannot claim appointment to the post of Headmistress is also legally unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the contention raised by the petitioner, in view of the exemption granted vide Ext.R1H Government order dated 05.03.2019, invoking the provisions contained in the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER. The learned Single Judge has also not properly appreciated the contention raised by the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in James Mathew [(2017) 15 SCC 595].

10. On the other hand, the respective counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 8 and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 7 contended that, by the judgment dated 10.04.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022 after considering the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in this intra-court appeal.

11. As already noticed hereinbefore, the main relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022 is a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, whereby approval has been granted for the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021.

12. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA of KER deals with appointment of Headmasters, Headmistresses and Vice Principals, by the Manager of the school, subject to the rules laid down in the matter. A teacher, if aggrieved by such appointment, will have the right to appeal to the Department. As per sub-rule

(2) of Rule 44, an appeal under sub-rule (1) shall lie to the Educational Officer and as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 44, a second appeal shall lie to the District Educational Officer against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer passed on an appeal preferred under sub-rule (2). In the case of an order passed by the District Educational Officer under sub-rule (2), the second appeal shall lie to the Deputy Director of Education.

13. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter XIVA of KER, the appointment order signed by the Manager and the teacher, along with other documents, as required by the Director from time to time, shall be submitted by the Manager to the Educational Officer for approval, in the manner prescribed in sub-rule (1). As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, the Educational Officer, on receipt of the appointment order and other records mentioned in sub-rule (1), may approve the appointment in the manner prescribed in sub-rule (2), if it is in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, the Kerala Education Rules and the orders issued by the Government or the Director, from time to time. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, if the approval of appointment is declined for any reasons, the order declining approval, showing reasons thereof, shall be communicated to the teacher through the Manager. As per sub-rule (5) of Rule 8, an appeal shall lie against the order declining approval of appointment issued by the Assistant Educational Officer or the District Educational Officer to the District Educational Officer or to the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, and the decision of the appellate authority shall be final. As per Rule 45, subject to Rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of a complete Upper Primary School is vacant or when an incomplete Upper Primary School becomes a complete Upper Primary School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the educational agency. Rule 45 prescribes the qualifications for the post of Headmaster.

14. As per Rule 8A, added by the Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 1978, the Director may, on his own motion or otherwise, call for records of the orders relating to approval of appointments issued by the subordinate officers and revise the same. As per the proviso to Rule 8A, an order affecting the interest of a person shall not be passed under Rule 8A, unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such orders.

15. In Chitralekha V. v. Renjitha P. [2026 KHC OnLine 116], a Division Bench of this Court in which both of us are parties, held that the orders relating to approval of appointments issued by the subordinate officers, including the orders passed by the appellate authority in an appeal filed under sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of Chapter XIVA of KER, against the order declining approval of appointment issued by the Assistant Educational Officer or the District Educational Officer, as the case may be, are revisable under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of KER by the Director of General Education. On the other hand, the appeal provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 44 and the second appeal provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA of KER are against the order of appointment of Headmasters, Headmistresses and Vice Principals by the Manager.

16. In the instant case, Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, which was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022, whereby approval has been granted for the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021, is an order which can be challenged in a revision petition filed before the Director of General Education, invoking the provisions under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of KER. Therefore, instead of challenging Ext.P13 order, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant-petitioner ought to have challenged the same by filing a revision petition before the 6th respondent Director of General Education, invoking the statutory remedy provided under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of KER.

17. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

18. In view of the statutory remedy provided under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of KER, by way of a revision petition before the 6th respondent Director of General Education, which is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy, the appellant-petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, whereby approval has been granted to the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021. None of the grounds raised in W.P.(C)No. 7713 of 2022, in order to challenge Ext.P13 order, has made out an exceptional case warranting interference on the said order, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; despite the availability of an adequate efficacious alternative remedy provided under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of KER.

19. Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, as it stood prior to its amendment by G.O.(P)No.456/61/Edn. dated 02.08.1961, provided that persons connected with management not to be appointed in schools except as Headmasters. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, no person who is a manager or member or other office bearer of the managing body, if any referred to in Rule 2, shall be eligible for any appointment in that school or any other school under the same educational agency other than as Headmaster. As per the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, managers, or members, or other office bearers of the managing body working as teachers, when these Rules come into force, may continue to do so.

20. In Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, the words ‘except as Headmasters’ were omitted by G.O.(P)No.456/61/Edn. dated 02.08.1961. Rule 8(1), after its amendment by the said notification dated 02.08.1961, reads thus;

                  “8. Persons connected with management not to be appointed in schools.

                  (1) No person who is a manager or member or other office bearer of the managing body, if any referred to in Rule 2, shall be eligible for any appointment in that school or any other school under the same educational agency.

                  Provided that managers, or members, or other office bearers of the managing body working as teachers including Headmasters, when these Rules come into force, may continue to do so.

                  Provided further that sub-rule (1) does not apply to a staff or teachers’ committee wherein the members of the staff or teachers of a school including the Headmaster are members.”

                  (underline supplied)

21. By the Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 2019, notified vide G.O.(P)No.6/2019/G.Edn. dated 30.06.2019, after the word ‘Headmasters’, the words ‘or Headmistresses or Vice Principals’ were inserted in the first and second provisos to sub- rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER.

22. In the instant case, the appellant-petitioner was appointed as UPSA (later redesignated as UPST) in Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School, on 19.12.1990. At the time of appointment, the school belonged to her mother K. Asuma Beevi, as her proprietary concern. Vide document No.3368 dated 22.10.1994 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kottiyam, the appellant, respondents 1 and 8 and four others, who are the daughters of K. Asuma Beevi, acquired title over 1.46 Acres of land and the buildings situated therein, in which their mother was running the school. Asuma Beevi died on 23.12.2017. On her death, the right of management of the school was also vested in her daughters, including the appellant. Ext.P18/R1G is a copy of the bye-law of the corporate educational agency of Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School. By Ext.R1H Government order dated 05.03.2019, the Government granted exemption to the appellant, who is working as a teacher in Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School, from the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, to become a member of the corporate educational agency of the said school.

23. In Madhavan v. State of Kerala [1978 KLT 325] the question that came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court was as to whether a teacher, who is also the Manager of the school with effect from 03.03.1955, can get himself appointed as the Headmaster, in view of the fact that he happens to be the seniormost qualified teacher entitled to be appointed as the Headmaster. The prohibition is contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER. After quoting the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, the learned Single Judge held that the expressed prohibition in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 is against the appointment of a person who is a manager or member or other office bearer of the managing body of the school. Of course, the first proviso enables teachers including Headmasters, who were managers on the date when the KER came into force, to continue to do so. But no further appointment is contemplated by the above proviso. So, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the definition of teacher in Rule 2 of Chapter I of KER and claim the post of Headmaster, which the petitioner can become only by virtue of an appointment and approval of the same. In view of the prohibition in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, the petitioner cannot claim the post of Headmaster of the school under Rule 45 of Chapter XIVA of KER. The petitioner has either to continue as Manager and contend with the post of a teacher (Upper Primary School Assistant) or give up the managership and become the Headmaster of the school.

24. In Unnikrishnan v. District Educational Officer, Palakkad [1996 (1) KLT 501] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the appellant was appointed as a teacher in AUPS, Thenur West on 27.06.1980, long after the provisions contained in Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER was brought into force. But, at that time, the appointment was proper, because the school belongs solely to the appellant’s father as his proprietary concern. At that time, the appellant was not a member or office bearer of any managing body of the school. But, on 10.02.1981, on the death of his father, the appellant became a member of the managing body of the school. Thereafter, the appellant cannot get a fresh appointment as Headmaster, because of the provisions contained in Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER. The Division Bench held that as a member of the managing body, the appellant cannot seek any appointment in the school. But, since he was holding the post of teacher when the management devolved on the managing body, he can continue in that post. No new appointment is required for his continuance as teacher. If he has to be appointed as Headmaster, a fresh order to that effect is necessary. Such an appointment cannot be effected on account of the prohibition contained in Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER.

25. In Unnikrishnan [1996 (1) KLT 501], the Division Bench noticed that an identical question came up before a learned Single Judge in Madhavan [1978 KLT 325]. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge took the view that under the cover of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III KER, a member of a managing body, who was working as a teacher in the school, cannot claim the post of Headmaster of the school, relying on the definition of ‘teacher’ in Rule 2 of Chapter I of KER. The Division Bench agreed with the said view taken by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench found that Rule 2 of Chapter I of KER, the definition clause, defines ‘teacher’ as ‘including Headmaster’. On the basis of the said definition, it was argued before the Division Bench, by the learned counsel for the appellant, that a teacher can hold the post of Headmaster as well, because Headmaster is also a teacher. The Division Bench noticed that in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, the words used are ‘as teachers including Headmasters’. If the word ‘teachers’ alone was included in the proviso, an argument could have been advanced by the appellant to the effect that, as the appellant was a teacher and teacher includes Headmaster, he can continue as the Headmaster of the school even after becoming a member of the managing body. Such an interpretation cannot hold good because, the proviso makes it abundantly clear that a teacher can continue in the post of teacher only and Headmaster can continue as Headmaster of the school. When a teacher is appointed as the Headmaster, it is a fresh appointment and approval of that appointment by the educational authority is contemplated. In that view, even though the definition of teacher includes Headmaster, a teacher who is a member of the managing body of the school cannot claim posting or appointment as Headmaster of the school. The post held by the appellant prior to his becoming a member of the managing body can be continued and cannot claim any other post under a fresh order of appointment. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the claim of the appellant to get appointment as Headmaster of the school cannot be sustained.

26. In view of the prohibition contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER and the law laid down in Unnikrishnan [1996 (1) KLT 501] and Madhavan [1978 KLT 325], the appellant-petitioner, who was working as an Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) in Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School, on becoming a member of the corporate educational agency of the said school, can continue in the post of UPST, and she cannot claim a posting or appointment as the Headmistress of the school, under a fresh order of appointment.

27. Placing reliance on the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209], the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the right of the appellant to be considered for promotion as the Headmistress of Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. In the said decision, the Constitution Bench reiterated that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense, ‘equality of opportunity’ in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word ‘employment’ being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be ‘considered’ for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be ‘considered’ for promotion, which is his personal right.

28. As already noticed hereinbefore, in view of the prohibition contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER and the law laid down in Unnikrishnan [1996 (1) KLT 501] and Madhavan [1978 KLT 325], the appellant-petitioner, who is a member of the corporate educational agency of Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School, who is presently holding the post of Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) cannot claim promotion as the Headmistress of the said school, under Rule 45 of Chapter XIVA of KER. Since the appellant is not a person who satisfies the eligibility criteria for being promoted as the Headmistress of the school, in view of the statutory prohibition contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, it cannot be contended that the denial of promotion to the appellant as the Headmistress of the school would be a clear infraction of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Costitution of India. The said contention of the appellant can only be repelled as untenable and we do so.

29. Another contention raised by the appellant-petitioner was that the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021, was the sole decision of the 1st respondent Manager (the then Manager). In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the management, i.e., the corporate educational agency, alone has the right to appoint a person of its choice as the Headmaster and not the Manager of the school, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in James Mathew [(2017) 15 SCC 595]. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed the specific contention raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that notice regarding the appointment of Headmistress was brought to the notice of all the members of the committee vide Ext.R1A notice dated 17.05.2021, which was issued through WhatsApp due to Covid pandemic restrictions, and Exts.R1B to R1F opinions of the members of the committee were obtained, and based on the decision of the majority the 2nd respondent was appointed as the Headmistress of the school. The petitioner, who was a member of the managing committee, has given Ext.R1F opinion. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the decision to appoint the 2nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school was taken on the basis of the majority opinion of the members of the managing committee. The finding of the learned Single Judge on the above aspect cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference in this intra-court appeal.

30. Another contention raised by the appellant-petitioner was that in view of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, substituted vide the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Rules, 2021, notified vide Ext.P14 notification dated 05.01.2021, which came into force with effect from 30.04.2011, teachers who are otherwise eligible for being promoted as Head Teachers shall be exempted from passing such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules on or after attaining the age of 50 years. In view of Ext.P14 notification, the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years is exempted from passing such departmental tests, etc. On the above aspect, it has to be noticed that, admittedly the 2nd respondent passed test qualifications on 19.07.2019, who was the seniormost qualified UPST in the school as on 01.06.2021, the date of occurrence of vacancy, on the retirement of Sri. K. Shaji, the Headmaster of the school, on 31.05.2021. As on the date of occurrence of vacancy, the appellant cannot claim promotion as the Headmistress of the school, in view of the prohibition contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER, since she is a member of the corporate educational agency of Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School. Therefore, even if the contention of the appellant with reference to the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, substituted vide the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Rules, 2021, is accepted, she cannot claim promotion as the Headmistress of the school, in the vacancy that occurred on 01.06.2021, in preference to the 2nd respondent.

                  In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merits in the contentions raised by the appellant-petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022. This writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.