S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.27811 of 2025 has filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether it is the date of entry in service as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) (‘HSST (Junior)’ for short), or the date of posting as Higher Secondary School Teacher (‘HSST’ for short) that has to be counted for calculating seniority for by transfer appointment to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School?

3. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner entered service as HSST (Junior) in Economics on 10.10.2003 through direct recruitment, and the appellant-5th respondent entered service as HSST (Junior) in Hindi on 09.10.2003 in Ithithanam Higher Secondary School, Malakunnam (the ‘School’ for short), managed by the 5th respondent herein. The said appointment of the appellant and the 1st respondent was approved by the then Director of Higher Secondary Education, vide Ext.P1 order dated 22.01.2006. While in service, the 1st respondent and appellant were appointed as HSST (Economics) and (Hindi) respectively with effect from 28.06.2004, and that appointment was approved by the Director of Higher Secondary Education on 12.08.2006 by Ext.P2 order.

                  3.1. In Ext.P3 combined staff seniority list as on 01.06.2024, the 1st respondent was ranked as No.4 and the appellant was ranked as No.2. According to the 1st respondent the said seniority list was prepared reckoning the date of entry in service as HST/HSST (Junior) as the basis of entry in service relying on Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules (‘KER’ for short) by placing the appellant above in rank, who joined in service in the High School on 02.06.1997. Contending that Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV A of KER is not applicable in deciding the seniority of HSST and for determining inter-say seniority of the members of the same service, and if the date of appointment of two rival candidates are the same, the seniority has to be decided based on the age of the rival candidates, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition.

                  3.2. It is contended by the 1st respondent that, on the retirement of the then Principal of the School on 31.05.2025, being the seniormost HSST, the 1st respondent is entitled to be appointed as Principal with effect from 01.06.2025. On 09.07.2024, the then Principal availed leave till 31.01.2025. Based on the ranking in Ext.P3 seniority list, the appellant was put in additional charge of the Principal with effect from 09.07.2024 to 08.10.2024 by Ext.P4 order dated 01.08.2024 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education (‘RDD’ for short). When Exts.P3 and P4 were brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, he made Ext.P4(a) submission dated 04.01.2025 before the Manager, requesting to put him in the eligible position in the ranked list in view of his age. Apart from that, the 1st respondent submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 13.01.2025 before the Government, praying for setting aside Ext.P3 combined staff seniority list and to direct the RDD and the Manager to draw and approve a revised seniority list assigning rank No.2 to the 1st respondent, so as to enable him to get promoted to the post of Principal with effect from 01.06.2025. Thereafter, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3607 of 2025, wherein, by Ext.P6 judgment dated 29.01.2025, this Court directed the Government to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation, after hearing the 1st respondent and the appellant. After hearing the 1st respondent, the appellant and also the Manager, Ext.P7 order dated 12.06.2025 was passed by the Government, as per which it was stipulated that the seniority of HSSTs has to be decided based on the date of joining duty. The Government, as per Ext.P7 order, directed the Manager to produce the seniority list for the year 2025 before the educational authorities and the educational authorities were directed to examine the matter and pass orders on the seniority list, if it is in order. Since, as per Ext.P7, directions were given to the RDD, Ernakulam, the same was later corrected on 04.07.2025 as RDD, Kottayam. But the Manager produced the very same erroneous seniority list with the same contents in Ext.P3 before the RDD. The said seniority list dated 01.01.2025 is produced as Ext.P8 in the writ petition.

                  3.3. Since the seniority list is erroneous, the 1st respondent recorded his objection in the remarks column against his name in Ext.P8. Thereafter, the Manager appointed the appellant as the Principal by Ext.P9 order dated 02.06.2025. On receiving Ext.P9 order, the RDD issued Ext.P10 order dated 03.07.2025, again putting the appellant as Principal in charge and as Drawing and Disbursing Officer.

                  3.4. The 1st respondent further pleaded in the writ petition that, as per Ext.P12 Circular dated 23.04.2022 issued by the Government, the charge of DDO can be given only to the senior- most teachers. The provisional seniority list as on 01.01.2025, dated 10.09.2025 of the HSST of the School, provisionally approved, is produced as Ext.P13, and the finally approved seniority list by the RDD on 30.10.2025 is produced as Ext.P14 in the writ petition. Being aggrieved by his non-appointment as Principal, the 1st respondent-petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

                  “1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P3 and P8 and quash the same to the extent it assigns rank No.2 to the 5th respondent, denying the legitimate right of the petitioner to be assigned top-most rank in the post of HSST in the said list.

                  2) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P4, P9 and P10 and quash the same.

                  2(a) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P13 and quash the same to the extent it ranks the 5th respondent as rank No.1 and the petitioner as rank No.3 instead of ranking the petitioner as Rank No.1

                  2(b) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P14 and quash the same.

                  3) A declaration to the effect that the petitioner being the eldest HSST among the HSSTs’ who joined on 28.06.2004, is the senior most HSST in the School managed by the 4th respondent and the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in assigning rank No.2 to the 5th respondent as per Exts.P3 and P8 orders denying the right of the petitioner to be assigned the top most rank in the post of HSST is illegal, arbitrary and ab-initio void.

                  4) A direction to the 4th respondent to revise the Exts.P3 and P8 seniority lists, assigning Rank No.2 to the petitioner in view of his age.

                  5) A direction to the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner as Principal in charge and then Principal of the 4th respondent School forthwith.”

4. The appellant-5th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 15.09.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(c) documents. Paragraphs 5 to 14 of that counter affidavit read thus;

                  “5. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. Exhibit P3 combined seniority list of staff as on 01.06.2024 including HSST’s of Ithithanam Higher Secondary School is only a copy, which does not contain the respective signatures of the various employees. I am hereby producing the combined seniority list of the staff at Ithithanam HSS as on 01.06.2024 which is signed and accepted by the respective staff. A true copy of the same is produced herewith and marked for identification as Exhibit R5(a). The above staff seniority list states that the petitioner herein is appointed as HSST junior with effect from 10.10.2003. Whereas I am appointed as HSST junior with effect from 09.10.2003. The petitioner herein has accepted the above seniority list by putting his signature in Exhibit R5(a). He has not raised any objection to Exhibit R5(a) during the relevant time.

                  6. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. I am one day senior to the petitioner herein in the post of HSST (junior). I am also having previous service as language teacher Hindi in the same school from 17.01.1995 to 23.02.1995 and from 02.06.1997 till 01.06.2002. I am also having previous service in the same school as HSA Hindi from 02.06.2002 till 08.10.2003. In brief I am having a total previous service of 6½ years in the same school. A true copy of the experience certificate issued to me on 07.10.2003 by the Headmistress of Ithithanam High School is produced herewith and marked for identification as Exhibit R5(b). It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner is a direct recruit in the post of HSA (junior) whereas I have been appointed by transfer from HSA’s on seniority basis in the 25% quota.

                  7. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. The contention raised in the above paragraph that Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV of KER is not applicable for deciding the seniority of HSST is not a valid contention. The decision relied on by the petitioner in this regard is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case.

                  8. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. The provision extracted in the above paragraph regarding the method of appointment to the post of Principal in Higher Secondary School and qualification for the same which is contained in chapter XXXII of KER has to be read along with Chapter XIV Rule 37(2) of KER. In the instant case, I am having previous service of about 6½ years in the same school. In this regard Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV KER is extracted hereunder.

                  “In the case of teachers in the same grade in the same unit whose date of commencement of continuous service is the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to the date of 1st appointment. If the date of 1st appointment is also the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to age, the olders being senior”. It is submitted that note 1 of Rule 6 Chapter XXXII KER is not applicable to the case on hand. I have no quarrel with regard to the above provision.

                  9. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. The petitioner has adopted double standard that Chapter XIVA is not applicable for appointment as Principals from HSST’s and also making reliance on rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA KER. The same can only be termed as double standard. I am entitled to be appointed as principal for the simple reason that I was holding seniority due to my initial appointment in the same school and also on the basis of one days seniority in the post of HSST (junior).

                  10. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. The petitioner herein has not raised any objection to Exhibit R5(a) seniority list. On the basis of Exhibit R5(a) seniority list, I have been granted the full additional charge of principal by virtue of Exhibit P4.

                  11. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. It is submitted that Exhibit R4(a) objection is dated 04.01.2025 whereas Exhibit R5(a) combined seniority list is dated 01.06.2024. The above combined seniority list has been prepared and send for approval much prior to Exhibit R4(a).

                  12. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. Regarding the averments contained in Exhibit P5 representation, it is submitted as follows. Exhibit P5 is submitted only on 13.01.2025 whereas Exhibit R5(a) combined seniority list is dated 01.06.2024 and the petitioner has put his signature on the same.

                  13. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. This respondent as well as the petitioner were heard and Exhibit P7 order has been issued.

                  14. Regarding the averments contained in paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition, it is submitted as follows. Exhibit P8 is the combined seniority list as on 01.01.2025. This respondent is producing the signed copy of the above seniority list by the respective employees. A true copy of the same is produced herewith and marked for identification as Exhibit R5(c). The petitioner has for the 1st time raised his objection on the same. The above objection is highly belated. The appointment of this respondent on the basis of the Exhibit P9 order is legal and is not liable to be interfered with. Exhibit P10 is consequential to Exhibit P9. There is no illegality or irregularity in issuance of Exhibit P11 by this respondent. Exhibit P12 circular has no relevance to the facts situation.”

5. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2025, the appellant produced Ext.R5(d) document in the writ petition. Thereafter, by filing I.A.No.3 of 2025, the 1st respondent-petitioner produced Exts.P13 and P14 documents.

6. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials placed on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2026 quashing Exts.P3, P4, P8, P9, P10 and P13 orders. The Manager was directed to revise Exts.P3 and P8 seniority lists, assigning appropriate rank to the 1st respondent-petitioner in the seniority list, in the cadre of HSST, taking note of his superior age. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-5th respondent filed this writ appeal.

7. Heard Shri. Elvin Peter, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-5th respondent, Shri. P. M. Pareeth, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner, Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Shri. Mathew Devassi, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would argue that Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV A of KER does not apply to the present case, since the issue in this case pertains to the appointment of a Principal in a Higher Secondary School, which is governed by Chapter XXXII of KER, whereas Chapter XIVA pertains to High Schools. By pointing out Rules 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 4(1), 4(2) and 6(1) of Chapter XXXII of KER, the learned Senior Counsel argued that since the appointment of the appellant as HSST (Junior) is earlier in date, he has to be treated as the senior and therefore, his inclusion in the rank list above that of the 1st respondent-petitioner and appointing him as the Principal is not suffering from any illegality. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Girija Kumar S. v. Rajitha K. G. [2019 (4) KLT 315], wherein the issue is clearly answered in favour of the appellant. In support of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. N. Ramachandra Rao [(1990) 3 SCC 590].

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would argue that, as far as the qualification for the post of Principal is concerned, the by-transfer appointment has to be made from the post of HSST. Since the appointment of the appellant as well as the 1st respondent as HSST is on the same date, for fixation of seniority, the age has to be taken as the criterion, and not the entry in service as HSST (Junior). As far as the judgment of this Court in Girija Kumar S. [2019 (4) KLT 315] and that of the Apex Court in Dr. N. Ramachandra Rao [(1990) 3 SCC 590], the learned counsel argued that both these judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case, since there is no upgradation of the School as in the case of Girija Kumar S. [2019 (4) KLT 315] and there is no exclusion in the seniority list as in the case of Dr. N. Ramachandra Rao [(1990) 3 SCC 590]. During arguments, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent conceded that Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV A of KER is not applicable to the instant case, since it pertains to High Schools. Apart from the above argument, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajeswari Devi S. v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 589], which was relied by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel further pointed out that the judgment in Ramesan v. Manoj Kumar K. [2019 (3) KHC 942], which was relied upon by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, is stayed by the Apex Court as per the order dated 21.10.2019 in SLP (C) Nos. 24723- 24724 of 2019. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Nanminda Higher Secondary School v. Director of Higher Secondary Education [2015 (3) KLT 307], also in support of his arguments, pointing out that the said judgment was not interfered by the Apex Court when challenged by the aggrieved in that case by filing SLP (C) No.29266 of 2015.

10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that, as per Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER, the qualification for by transfer appointment as Principal in Higher Secondary Schools is a teaching experience of 12 years at the Higher Secondary level. There is no differentiation between HSST and HSST (Junior) in the said rule, and therefore it is the appellant who is entitled to be appointed as the Principal, considering the seniority from the date of his first appointment as HSST (Junior). The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the judgment in Rajeswari Devi S. [2023 (2) KHC 589], relied by the learned Single Judge, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

11. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent addressed arguments supporting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

12. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the Bar, it is appropriate to extract some of the provisions under Chapter XXXII of KER, which are relevant as far as the appointment of the Principals in Higher Secondary Schools.

13. As per Rule 1(d) of Chapter XXXII of KER, a Higher Secondary School Teacher means a Higher Secondary School Teacher of an aided school whose workload is 15 periods or more per week per subject.

14. As per Rule 1(e) of Chapter XXXII of KER, a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) means a Higher Secondary School Teacher of an aided school whose workload is less than 15 periods per week per subject.

15. Rule 1(f) of Chapter XXXII of KER defines Principal as the teacher who acts as the academic head of the Higher Secondary Course and who is in charge of the general supervision of such schools.

16. Rule 4 (1) and (2) of Chapter XXXII of KER read thus;

                  “Method of Appointment:- Appointment to the various categories specified in Column (2) of the Table below shall be made by the method of appointment specified against each in column (3) thereof

                  1. Principal - (1) By promotion from category 2 under the respective educational agency or

                  (2) By transfer from qualified Headmasters/Headmistresses of Aided High Schools under the respective educational agency.

                  Note:- (i) 2[x x x x]

                  (ii) 2[x x x x]

                  (iii) The post shall be filled up by the methods specified in item (i) and (ii) above in the ratio 2:1. If qualified candidates are not available for appointment to a vacancy by any one of the methods specified above, such vacancies shall be filled up by the other method.

                  2. Higher Secondary School Teacher - (1) By transfer from Junior Lecturer in the subject concerned under the management/Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior)

                  (2) In the absence of qualified hands under clause (1) above, the vacancies shall be apportioned in the ratio 1:3 between appointment by transfer and direct appointment as detailed below:

                  (i) (a) By transfer from High School Assistants, who possess the requisite qualifications, under the Educational Agency.

                  (b) In the absence of qualified persons under (a) above, by transfer from qualified Upper Primary School Assistants/Lower Primary School Assistants who possess the requisite qualification in the subject concerned, under the Educational Agency.

                  (ii) By direct appointment

                  Note:- (i) When qualified persons are not available to fill up the vacancies set apart for appointment by transfer under item 2(i) above such vacancies shall also be allotted for direct appointment.

                  (ii) Appointments under item (I) above shall be made from select lists of qualified persons prepared on the basis of seniority and merit.”

                  [Underline supplied]

17. Rule 6 (1) of Chapter XXXII of KER reads thus;

                  “6. Qualifications:- No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category in column (2) in the table below under the method specified in column (3) unless he possesses the Qualifications prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof.

                  1. Principal - By Promotion - (1) Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala.

                  (2) B.Ed. Degree from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala.

                  (3) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years at Higher Secondary Level under the same Educational Agency.

                  Note - 1. In the absence of persons having qualification as specified above, approved teaching experience at High School/Upper/Primary/Lower Primary School's under the same Educational Agency shall be considered.

                  2. Such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying Service and shall not be reckoned for Seniority.

                  3. Such persons must possess a minimum Service of Six years as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior/Junior)"

                  By transfer - (1) Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a Qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala.

                  (2) B.Ed. Degree from any of the Universities in Kerala or qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala.

                  (3) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years under the same Educational Agency”

                  [Underline supplied]

18. There is not much dispute on the point that Chapter XIVA of KER does not apply to the present case, since the appointment in dispute herein pertains to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School, which is governed under Chapter XXXII of the KER. Therefore, Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV A of KER, which speaks about deciding seniority with reference to the date of the first appointment or with reference to age, the older being the senior, does not apply to the present case.

19. In Girija Kumar S. [2019 (4) KLT 315], a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the contention between two Higher Secondary School Teachers who were made HSST (Junior) on the same day and became HSST also on a same day, regarding seniority, which was granted by the RDD by relying on Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A of KER held thus;

                  “5. We have to first notice that Chapter XIVA has no application to Chapter XXXII as already found by us. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, in Ramesan, we specifically found the absence of a suitable rule in Chapter XXXII for the purpose of fixing the seniority of the HSST appointed to a school, especially when they are appointed on direct recruitment. As against the promotees or by transfer appointees, we found that it has to be on the basis of the first arising vacancy with the promotees being assigned the positions at 1, 5, 9 and so on and so forth, the ratio being 1:3. There is an absence of a rule prescribing a norm in so far as the seniority of the directly recruited teachers.

                  6. Nanminda Higher Secondary School is a case in which certain teachers, who were appointed first to the post of HSST(Junior), claimed that seniority in the cadre of HSST has to be reckoned from the first appointment as an HSST(Junior). Therein the persons who were appointed first to the post of HSST(Junior) were only later promoted to the post of HSST. This was for reason of an upgradation to the post of HSST being possible when a HSST(Junior) is called upon to engage students for more than 15 periods as is provided in Rule - 1(d) & (e). It was in such circumstance that the Division Bench of this Court found that the seniority in the cadre of HSST can be reckoned only on the basis of the first appointment to that post.

                  7. Here, admittedly, all the persons were appointed on the very same day to the post of HSST(Junior) and HSST. As we noticed, there is no Rule available in Chapter XXXII as is there in Chapter XIVA, which prescribes age to be reckoned for the purpose of fixing seniority among persons who are appointed on the very same day. In fact R.37(3) first speaks of the seniority of teachers, whose date of commencement of continuous service is the same, to be decided first with reference to the date of first appointment and only if that is also identical; age becomes the determinate factor. Hence the finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner who was first appointed, though in a part time post, has to be assigned seniority above the others is perfectly in tune with even R.37 of Chapter XIVA.”

                  [Underline supplied]

20. The Apex Court in Dr. N. Ramachandra Rao [(1990) 3 SCC 590], while considering the issue of promotion to the category of Additional Director from among the select list prepared among the post of Civil Assistant Surgeons, held thus;

                  “16. R.33(a) of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules provides that seniority of a person in service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. It seems to us that the seniority in the category of professors in the teaching and non teaching cadre or in the lower cadre based on speciality wise may not be relevant for preparation of a panel for promotion to the cadre of Additional Director and other equivalent posts in Category. Equally the service rendered as Deputy Civil Surgeon in category 5 cannot also be the basis for preparing the panel for consideration. As observed earlier, Deputy Civil Surgeon is a common category in all the Branches; Branch I teaching cadre; Branch II non teaching cadre and Branch III Laboratories. It is a part of the category of Civil Assistant Surgeons, and not cadre post. It is just like selection grade post covering in all 15% of total cadre strength of Civil Assistant Surgeons. The posts are distributed in all the three Branches and promotion to the posts depends upon the available vacancies in every branch.

                  17. Furthermore, R.2 does not expressly exclude the service in Class II Cadre for preparing panel for consideration for promotion to posts with which we are concerned. We also consider that it would be unreasonable and unjust to exclude the service and overlook the vertical seniority in the substantive cadre to which everyone was selected by the Public Service Commission. In medical profession there are specialities and specialities, but it is generally accepted that they are not of equal importance or utility. However, the promotions are allowed on the basis of the respective specialities and the availability of promotional vacancies in such specialities. A junior with relatively less important speciality may be fortunate enough to get quick promotion than his senior with a different speciality. We are of the opinion that the juniors who get accelerated promotion on account of fortuitous circumstances depending upon their speciality and availability of vacancies in such speciality should not be allowed to march over their seniors for appointment to administrative posts. Any advantage gained by juniors on such fortuitous circumstances of having some speciality and promotion should not impair the rights of their seniors for promotion to posts where speciality or teaching experience is not called for. The seniority determined in order of speciality should not therefore be the basis for promotion to administrative posts. Any rule providing for the contrary may be vulnerable to attack on the ground of arbitrariness.”

                  [Underline supplied]

21. Though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in Nanminda Higher Secondary School [2015 (3) KLT 307], the said judgment is distinguished in Girija Kumar S. [2019 (4) KLT 315] as extracted above. Therefore, the judgment in Nanminda Higher Secondary School [2015 (3) KLT 307] is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

22. In Rajeswari Devi [2023 (2) KHC 589], a learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering various judgments passed by the Apex Court as well as this Court, by referring to the provisions of Chapter XIV A and XXXII of the KER, held thus;

                  “21. Therefore, the well recognised canon of service jurisprudence for determining inter - se seniority of members of the same service is to be followed. If the date of appointment of two rival candidates are the same, the seniority has to be decided based on the age of the rival candidates. In this case admittedly the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.9671 of 2022 is senior in age considering the age of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.7070 of 2022. Therefore, without relying on Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER, the general service jurisprudence is to be followed for deciding seniority. Hence the petitioner in W.P. (C). No.9671 of 2022 is the senior compared to the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.7070 of 2022. Therefore there is nothing to interfere with the impugned orders in W.P.(C). No.7070 of 2022.”

                  [Underline supplied]

23. As noted above, the issue in Rajeswari Devi [2023 (2) KHC 589] was pertaining to the applicability of Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV A of KER when the rival claimants of seniority entered the service of HSST on the same date. Therefore, the said judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.

24. Apart from that, from the provisions under Chapter XXXII extracted above, it is clear that the appointment to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School is as provided under Rule 4(1) and (2) of the said Chapter. A reading of Rule 1 (d) and (e) of Chapter XXXII of KER would make it clear that the post of HSST is not a promotion post to the post of HSST(Junior). The only difference is that in the case of HSST of an aided School whose workload is 15 or more periods per week per subject, the designation will be HSST, and in the case the workload is less than 15 periods per week per subject, the designation will be HSST (Junior). The reading of Rule 6(1)(3) of Chapter XXXII of KER further makes it clear that to get appointment as Principal, a teacher in the Higher Secondary level should have a minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years. The said Rule does not prescribe that the aforesaid minimum approved teaching experience should be as HSST. A combined reading of Rule 4(1) and (2) and Rule 6(1) of Chapter XXXII of the KER shows that the requirement for by transfer appointment of Principal is that it should be from the HSST who has 12 years of minimum teaching experience either as HSST or HSST (Junior). The only satisfaction that has to be arrived at by the Manager is that at the time of promotion, the teacher should have been an HSST and not an HSST (Junior), with 12 years of minimum teaching experience either as HSST or HSST (Junior). When the post of HSST cannot be taken as a promotion post from the post of HSST (Junior), the 1st respondent-petitioner cannot contend that the appellant, as well as the 1st respondent, entered service at the Higher Secondary level on the same date. When, admittedly, the appellant is appointed before the appointment of the 1st respondent-petitioner to the post of HSST (Junior), it can only be said that the appellant-5th respondent is senior to that of the 1st respondent-petitioner. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in their proper perspective while passing the impugned judgment.

25. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, as discussed above, we find that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

                  In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.27811 of 2025, and the writ petition stands dismissed.