Judgment :- 1. Petitioners, 6 number, are teachers. They were working in the school belonging to the 4th respondent, N.S.S. Karayogham. The 4th respondent transferred the school and its management to the 5th respondent, the Nair Service Society. This transfer is challenged on the ground that it affected the petitioners' seniority and right, pot to be transferred from the school. It is the further case of the petitioners that the transfer was against the provisions contained in S.6 of the Kerala Education Act and R.5A of Chap.3 of the Kerala Education Rules. 2. The 4th respondent started the school and it had under its management this school alone. The petitioners were teachers in the school. Their seniority was fixed as between the members of the staff in that unit. They were free from transfer to distant places because the 4th respondent had only this school under its management. 3. The 5th respondent is a corporate management. If the 5th respondent gets the ownership and management of the school, the seniority of the petitioners will have to be decided taking into consideration the service of other members of the staff in the various schools belonging to the 5th respondent. Petitioners will be liable to be transferred to other units run by the 5th respondent. On these grounds the petitioners submit that the change of management will affect their rights adversely. If the transfer adversely affects the interests of the staff, it is argued, the transfer cannot be permitted under R.5A of Chap.3 of Kerala Education Rules. While granting sanction under R.5A, the Director is to see whether the transfer will adversely affect the interests of the staff in the school. For deciding this question the Director is to examine whether the transfer will in any way adversely affect the interests of teachers and other staff which are protected by the Kerala Education Act and Rules. This having not been done, it is contended that the order Ext. P9 is illegal. I do not find my way to agree to this submission. All relevant matters were taken note of while passing Ext. P9. As could be seen from the Kerala Education Rules, no member of the staff in a school if having the right to continue in the same school without being transferred to another if the management has got more than one school. All relevant matters were taken note of while passing Ext. P9. As could be seen from the Kerala Education Rules, no member of the staff in a school if having the right to continue in the same school without being transferred to another if the management has got more than one school. The possibility of the staff being transferred to another school is no ground to refuse sanction to the transfer of the school and the management. 4. If the 4th respondent had acquired another school or started a second one, the 4th respondent by itself will take the character of a corporate management. In such a situation the 4th respondent gets the right to transfer the members of the staff from the existing school to the other., In this view, the petitioners had no right to continue in the school belonging to the 4th respondent free from transfer to other schools. Thus it is seen that they had no right under the KER to continue in the parent school. In this view, the transfer of the school to the 5th respondent is not one adversely affecting the interests of the staff of the school. 5. Another argument advanced by the learned Counsel is that the property of the school was transferred in favour of 5th respondent in 1979, and that the said transfer was against the provisions contained in S.6 of the Education Act. According to Counsel, before the transfer was effected there should have been prior permission from the Educational Authorities. No authority contemplated by the Act granted permission to effect the transfer of the property and so the transfer effected by the 4th respondent in favour of 5th respondent was void and inoperative. I do not find any merit in this contention. The 4th respondent has not transferred any property of an aided school belonging to it. The 4th respondent transferred the school and its properties to the 5th respondent. The school as a going concern was transferred. The transferee has applied for recognition as the manager. The Educational Authorities granted recognition. There was no transfer of the property of the school by the 4th respondent. Such a transfer will not fall within the mischief of S.6 of the Education Act. This view is supported by the decision in P.V. John v. Director of Public Instruction And Another (ILR 1975 (2) KER 604). The Educational Authorities granted recognition. There was no transfer of the property of the school by the 4th respondent. Such a transfer will not fall within the mischief of S.6 of the Education Act. This view is supported by the decision in P.V. John v. Director of Public Instruction And Another (ILR 1975 (2) KER 604). In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this Original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to costs. Issue photo copy/ carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms. Dismissed.