JUDGMENT T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The petitioner was a teacher in the Arya Bharathi High School, Omallur, having joined the institution on 4th June 1951. The said High School was purchased by the 11th respondent, His Grace the Archbishop of Trivandrum, on 3rd March 1964. His Grace had other educational institutions already under his management; and His Grace prepared a combined seniority list for all the institutions together after his purchase of this institution. As a result of this His Grace posted other teachers, who were senior to the petitioner in the combined seniority list, as headmaster of the Arya Bharathi High School. In the writ petition the petitioner claims that she should be appointed headmaster treating the Arya Bharathi High School as a separate unit for which a separate seniority list should also be maintained. 2. The counsel of the petitioner has attempted to support this contention on two grounds. Firstly, the counsel claims that the previous permission contemplated by S.6(1) of the Kerala Education Act was not obtained before the High School was transferred to the management of His Grace the Archbishop; and secondly the counsel contends that under the relevant rules in Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules the petitioner is entitled to be appointed headmaster of the Arya Bharathi High School. 3. S.6(1) of the Kerala Education Act provides that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, no sale, mortgage pledge, charge or transfer of possession in respect of any property of an aided school shall be created or made except with the previous permission in writing of such officer not below the rank of a District Educational officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf. Sub-s.(3) of S.6 further enacts that any transaction made in contravention of the provision aforesaid shall be null and void. The counsel of the petitioner argues that in this case the previous permission was not obtained for the transfer of the management and therefore the transfer should be declared to be null and void. What appears to have happened is that a few weeks after the transfer evidenced by Ex. P20 alone the appropriate authority accorded the necessary permission. The argument of the counsel is that what is contemplated by S.6(1) is previous permission, and that in the absence of such previous permission, the transfer should be null and void. 4. What appears to have happened is that a few weeks after the transfer evidenced by Ex. P20 alone the appropriate authority accorded the necessary permission. The argument of the counsel is that what is contemplated by S.6(1) is previous permission, and that in the absence of such previous permission, the transfer should be null and void. 4. I do not propose to consider this question and express any opinion thereon, because it is admitted by both sides that there is a civil litigation already pending questioning the transfer of the institution to His Grace the Archbishop. For the purpose of this writ petition, it is enough to point out that there is a long delay in the petitioner approaching this Court for relief even if she has Locus standi to question the transfer. This writ petition was filed in January 1967, while the transfer of the institution was effected, as already mentioned, as early as March 1964. The counsel of the petitioner seeks to meet this by relying upon the judgment of this Court in L. Sukumari Amma v. The District Educational Officer. Pathanamthitta (O. P. No. 107 of 1965) disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 12th January 1967. That was a writ petition filed by the same petitioner, which was dismissed with the observation that, if the petitioner had a right to bring another writ petition impleading proper parties, she might do so within ten days of the dismissal of that writ petition. It is clear that this reservation means only that, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to bring another writ petition, that right will not be affected by the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. Of course, such right will be available to the petitioner even without the reservation; and the petitioner cannot justify the long delay by this reservation. 5. Next I come to the claim of the petitioner under the relevant rules. The rules brought to my notice by the counsel of the petitioner are R.11, 34 to 37 and 44 of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules. 5. Next I come to the claim of the petitioner under the relevant rules. The rules brought to my notice by the counsel of the petitioner are R.11, 34 to 37 and 44 of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules. R.11 cannot obviously apply to the petitioner, because what the rule provides is that a teacher serving in one school under one Educational Agency may be transferred to a school under another Educational Agency with the previous approval of the District Educational Officer provided the two Educational Agencies and the teacher agree in writing to the said course. Naturally, in such a case the consent of the teacher concerned is essential. But in a case like the one before me, where there is no transfer of a teacher of one institution under one Educational Agency to another institution under another Educational Agency, this rule cannot apply. 6. R.34 to 37 provide for the maintenance of seniority lists of teachers in educational institutions. One of the rules to be considered is R.35, which provides that if an Educational Agency has more than one school in a District, all of them shall he constituted into one unit and a common seniority list shall be prepared for all the schools in the unit and shall be submitted to the District Educational Officer for approval. The rule further provides that, if the Educational Agency has schools in more than one District within a Region, they shall be constituted into one unit and a common seniority list shall be prepared for all the schools in the unit and submitted before the Regional Deputy Director for approval; and similarly if the Educational Agency has schools in more than one Region, the common seniority list shall cover all such schools and be submitted to the Director for approval. The Proviso to this rule and the Note attached thereto need not be considered: R.35A and 36 may also be omitted. 7. Now R.37 provides that the seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post. And R.36A, the most important. 7. Now R.37 provides that the seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post. And R.36A, the most important. rule as far as this case is concerned, provided that, when schools under one Educational Agency are transferred to another Educational Agency with the approval of the competent authority, the various categories of teachers in the schools so transferred shall be integrated with the corresponding categories of teachers already working on the date of transfer in the schools under the Educational Agency to which the transfer is made and the common seniority of all the teachers of the schools so transferred and the schools existing under the Educational Agency to which the transfer is made on the date of transfer shall be decided according to the length of continuous service of all such teachers transferred to the Educational Agency and existing under it on the date of transfer. There is a proviso to this section as well; and that is to the effect that the Educational agency to which transfer is made shall have the option to treat the teachers in the transferred school who were in the service of that school on the date of such transfer as a separate unit, their promotions being confined to the posts in the transferred school; and the option shall be exercised by the concerned Agency with the approval of the Director and prior to the transfer of the school unless the question of deciding seniority of the teachers of the transferred school or schools is pending decision on 8th June 1966. The only other rule referred to by the petitioner's counsel is R.44, which provides that the appointment of headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority. 8. It is clear from the rules referred to above that, when an institution is transferred from one management to another management and if the transferee management has other institutions as well under its management the transferee management is bound to have a common seniority list for all the institutions, and in such common seniority list, seniority has to be based on the length of continuous service. And an option is given to the transferee management to keep the transferred institution as a separate unit if such option is exercised before the transfer itself. There is no option for the staff of the transferred institution to claim that the institution should be kept as a separate unit with a separate seniority list. This is the clear scheme of the relevant rules mentioned hereinbefore: consequently the petitioner has no right to claim that the Arya Bharathi High School, to the staff of which she was attached before it was purchased by the 11th respondent, should be kept as a separate unit and that she should be given the headmastership of that institution on her seniority among the members of the staff of that institution alone. It is thus clear that the petitioner has no justifiable claim under the rules. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed, however, without costs.