JUDGMENT Narendran, J. 1. Interesting questions in the Kerala Education Rules arise for consideration in this case. The questions are: (1) After giving his consent for the transfer of a teacher working in a school under another educational agency can the Manager of a school fill up the vacancy by appointing another teacher and (2) if the Manager of a school requests for the return of an appointment order submitted for approval, the educational officer returns the same and the Manager resubmits the appointment duly signed by the teacher with effect from a later date, can the Government in revision direct that the appointment of the teacher should be approved with effect from the earlier date contained in the first appointment order submitted for approval. 2. The petitioner is now a Lower Primary School Assistant in the D. V. L. P. School, Vettiyar, of which the additional 4th respondent is the Manager. On 1st April, 1977 a vacancy of an Lower Primary School Assistant arose in the school because of the retirement of the Headmaster of the school. The additional 4th respondent decided to fill up that vacancy by inter management transfer of the petitioner who was then working in the A. M. L. P. S., Mattathur in Malappuram District. On 11th July, 1977 the manager gave a consent letter to the petitioner. Then as per the staff fixation for the year 1977-78 the 2nd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Mavelikkara sanctioned an additional post of Lower Primary School Assistant for the school. The manager appointed the 3rd respondent in that additional post on 1st August, 1977 and submitted the appointment for approval to the 2nd respondent. The District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara abolished the additional post of Lower Primary School Assistant sanctioned in the review of staff fixation by order, dated 18th August, 1977. Thereupon, the Manager requested the 2nd respondent for the return of the appointment order of the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent returned the same unapproved. Against the order of the District Educational Officer abolishing the new post sanctioned, the Manager filed an appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum and the post was restored with effect from 12th September, 1977 by the order passed in the appeal. The petitioner's inter management transfer was sanctioned and the petitioner joined duty in the D. V. L. P. School, Vettiyar on 13th September, 1977. The petitioner's inter management transfer was sanctioned and the petitioner joined duty in the D. V. L. P. School, Vettiyar on 13th September, 1977. The 3rd respondent's appointment was re-submitted more than once changing the dates of appointment and ultimately her appointment was approved with effect from 30th September, 1977 in the additional post of Lower Primary School Assistant sanctioned for the year 1977-78. The 3rd respondent continued to work in the school without break from 1st August, 1977. 3. On 8th May, 1978 that 3rd respondent submitted Ext. P-1 petition before the 1st respondent State requesting for orders to approve her appointment from 1st August, 1977 onwards. The petitioner on receipt of notice, submitted Ext. P-2 objections before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after hearing all the parties, passed Ext. P-3 order that the appointment of the 3rd respondent as teacher in the D. V. L. P. School, Vettiyar will be approved with effect from 1st August, 1977 on which date there was a vacancy in the school caused by the promotion of an Lower Primary School Assistant as Headmaster. It is the above order that the petitioner has challenged in this Original Petition. Over and above the relief for quashing Ext. P-3 the petitioner has prayed for the following two reliefs also: "(ii) to declare that the third respondent is entitled to have her appointment as Lower Primary School Assistant in the D. V. L. P. School, Vettiyar, Mavelikkara approved only against the additional vacancy which arose in the above school during the academic year 1977-78 and against which vacancy she was actually appointed by the Manager of the above school. (iii) to issue an interim order directing the second respondent to treat the petitioner as senior in service to the third respondent for all purposes, pending final disposal of the above Original Petition." 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent justifying Ext. P-3 order. One of the contentions taken in the counter affidavit is that the 2nd respondent ought not to have returned the first appointment order of the 3rd respondent, the Manager submitted for approval. Another stand taken is that the Manager did not observe the rules and orders while making the appointments of the 3rd respondent on 13th September, 1977 and 19th September, 1977. Another stand taken is that the Manager did not observe the rules and orders while making the appointments of the 3rd respondent on 13th September, 1977 and 19th September, 1977. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that there is ample evidence to show that the 3rd respondent was working in the school from 1st August, 1977 onwards. In para.10 of the counter affidavit it is pointed out that the inter management transfer of the petitioner was effected only on 13th September, 1977 and on that date there was a vacancy available in the school to provide her and so the petitioner's appointment as teacher in the D. V. L. P. School, Vettiyar with effect from 13th September, 1977 has been duly approved by the department. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that in view of the above approval there is no justification for the petitioner to object to the appointment of the 3rd respondent with effect from 1st August, 1977. 5. The 3rd respondent also has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that the 3rd respondent continued to work in the school from 1st August, 1977 without any break. The stand taken is that the petitioner cannot be senior to the 3rd respondent and Ext. P-3 order of the 1st respondent is perfectly valid. 6. R.11(1) and 13 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 read: "11. (i) A teacher serving in any 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; and in such cases the number and date of the order of the District Educational Officer containing the approval shall be quoted in the Last Pay Certificate. * * * * * 13. Teachers who are transferred as per these rules will continue to receive in the latter school the pay and the scale of pay they were receiving in the former school provided they are transferred to a post carrying the same scale of pay; and their rank in the new school will be fixed next below the juniormost teacher in the particular grade in that school, except in the case of transfers under R.10 in which case the existing seniority will continue. * * * * *" Vacancies in Aided Schools can be filled up either by direct recruitment or by transfer. If the transfer is an inter management one, the manager has to give a consent letter and on the basis of that consent letter the District Educational Officer within whose jurisdiction the school in which the teacher who has requested for the transfer is working, has to pass an order sanctioning the inter management transfer. Thereafter, the teacher after getting the relieving order from the school in which he was working has to join duty in the school to which he was transferred. The question is after giving his consent for the inter management transfer and thus initiating steps for the transfer of a teacher can the manager of the school fill up the vacancy by appointing another teacher. A clear indication that this is not possible is there in R.13 which insists that the rank in the new school of the teacher who is transferred will be next below the juniormost teacher in that particular grade. Not only that, the transfer is in a particular vacancy. If that vacancy is going to be filled up by appointing another teacher, when the teacher who requested for the transfer completes all the formalities gets relieved from the school where he was working and comes for joining duty in the new school, there will be no post in the school in which that teacher can be absorbed. So, it goes without saying that a post which the manager has agreed to be filled up by inter management transfer cannot be filled up by direct recruitment and that too before final orders are not passed in the transfer matter. If, for example, for any valid reason the department did not allow the transfer and in the meanwhile the manager fills up the vacancy by a direct recruitment even though the recruitment at the time when it was made was not in accordance with the rules, it can be later approved by the department if the transfer was declined by the department. In this case, it is clear that the 3rd respondent was not appointed by the manager in the vacancy in which the petitioner was transferred. In this case, it is clear that the 3rd respondent was not appointed by the manager in the vacancy in which the petitioner was transferred. An additional post of Lower Primary School Assistant which was sanctioned was, as a matter of fact, filled up by the manager by appointing the 3rd respondent with effect from 1st August, 1977. As soon as the manager came to know that the District Educational Officer abolished the post on 18th August, 1977 the manager requested for the return of the 3rd respondent's appointment order submitted for approval to the 2nd respondent. There was nothing wrong in the 2nd respondent in returning the appointment order. The 2nd respondent has the power either to approve the appointment or decline to approve the appointment. The appointment becomes effective from the date on which the teacher joined duty provided it is approved. If, for example, before the actual approval was given by the Educational Officer the manager, who is the appointing authority, for valid reasons wants the appointment order to be returned, the Educational Officer has to return the same. If the Educational Officer does not return it will be wrong and illegal. 7. In this case, the appointment of the 3rd respondent was ultimately approved with effect from 30th September, 1977. From what is stated above, it is clear that the 3rd respondent has no right to insist that her appointment should be approved in the retirement vacancy in which the manager had already given his consent for the transfer of the petitioner. What is contemplated by Ext. P-3 order is an unqualified approval of the appointment of the 3rd respondent with effect from 1st August, 1977. By this, not only that the 3rd respondent will get her salary from 1st August, 1977 onwards, she will also become senior to the petitioner as she will have approved qualified service in the school from a date earlier than the date on which the petitioner joined duty in the school. So, by Ext. P-3 order from 1st August, 1977 to 12th September, 1977 the appointment of the 3rd respondent has to be approved in the retirement vacancy in which the petitioner was transferred. This cannot be done to the detriment of the petitioner. So, by Ext. P-3 order from 1st August, 1977 to 12th September, 1977 the appointment of the 3rd respondent has to be approved in the retirement vacancy in which the petitioner was transferred. This cannot be done to the detriment of the petitioner. At the same time, as the petitioner could work in the school only from 13th September, 1977 and as the 3rd respondent has worked in the school from 1st August, 1977 without any break, to see that the 3rd respondent gets her salary for the period from 1st August, 1977 to 20th September, 1977 her appointment can be approved for the period 1st August, 1977 to 12th September, 1977 in the retirement vacancy and then for the period 13th September, 1977 to 20th September, 1977 against the additional post sanctioned in appeal as a special case on condition that the 3rd respondent will not claim seniority over the petitioner. If the 1st respondent wanted to see that the 3rd respondent who worked in the school should not be denied her salary from 1st August, 1977 to 29th September, 1977 what the 1st respondent ought to have done was this. 8. Hence I set aside Ext. P-3 and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter on the lines indicated above. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.