Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by five teachers of Upper Primary N.S.S. School, Pannoor, Karimannoor, challenging the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 3684 of 1981. The Educational Agency which owned the school in which the appellants are serving, viz., N.S.S. School, Pannoor, transferred the school to another Educational Agency. Nair Service Society, Perunna, Changanacherry. Whereas N.S.S. School, Pannoor, Karimannoor had only one school, Nair Service Society, Perunna, Changanacherry has more than one school. The appellants opposed the transfer on the ground that their interests would be adversely affected. They placed reliance on R.SA of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The principal contention of theirs was that their seniority would be affected and they would become liable to transfer to other schools. Their objections were overruled by the State Government as per Ext.P9 dated 24-9-1981. The State Government held that the objections of the appellants are not valid. The transfer thus stood sanctioned. Hence the appellants came to this Court for appropriate relief challenging Ext. P9. The learned single judge having dismissed the original petition the said judgment is challenged in this appeal. 2. Shri Sudhakara Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the rights which have been protected by R.5A of Chapter III of the Rules stand violated as a result of permission for transfer of the school being granted. The said rule reads: "5A. Change of management involving change of ownership. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no change of Management of any aided school involving change of ownership shall be effected except with the previous permission of the Director. The Director may grant such permission unless the grant of such permission will, in his opinion, adversely affect the working of the institution and the interests of the staff and the person to whom the Management is transferred. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-rule (1) may, within 30 days from the date or receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the 'Government." Reliance was placed on the latter Dart of sub-rule (1) which says that the permission for transfer may be refused if in the opinion of the Director it will adversely affect the working of the institution and the interests of the staff and the person to whom the Management is transferred. What is contended is that the interests of the appellants would be affected firstly because their seniority will stand adversely affected as a common seniority will have to be maintained in respect of the teachers of the schools coming under the same Educational Agency. The second aspect is about the possibility of their being liable to go on transfer to other schools as the transferee Educational Agency has more than one school. 3. So far as the question of seniority is concerned, the same stands regulated by R.36A of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules which reads: "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. The common seniority of all 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 the continuous service of all such teachers transferred to the Educational Agency and existing under it on the date of transfer subject to R.36 and sub-rule (2) of R.37. Provided however that the Educational Agency to which the transfer is made shall have the option to treat the teachers in the transferred school who were in the service in that school on the date of such transfer as a separate unit, their promotion being confined to the posts in the transferred school. 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 transferred school or schools is pending decision on 8th June, 1986." As the question of seniority and chances of promotion are expressly regulated by R.36A of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules, reasonable inference to be drawn is that what is expressly authorised by R.36A cannot be regarded as having the effect of adversely affecting the interests of the staff which R.5A seeks to protect. Though proviso to R.36A of Chapter XIV-A makes it clear that the Educational Agency to which the transfer is made has the option of treating the teachers under the Transferred school as a separate unit for purposes of promotion etc, we have to bear in mind that it is only an option given to the Educational Agency to which transfer is made and the transferee Educational Agency is not bound to treat the transferred school as a separate unit for the purpose of promotions. It is not possible to accede to the contention of Sri Sudhakara Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellants, that in order to ensure that the teachers of the school transferred are not adversely affected, the Educational Agency to which the transfer is made is bound to keep the teachers of the transferred school as a separate unit. We have no hesitation in taking the view that the possibility of the chances of promotion or seniority being affected as a consequence of transfer is not a ground on which the Director is bound to refuse permission for transfer. 4. So far as the question of transfer is concerned, it is not an enforceable condition of service. It is an incidence of service. There is no rule or condition that the appellants are not liable for transfer. The very same Educational Agency of the appellants' school can establish another school in which event the appellants cannot in law contend that they cannot be transferred to the newly established school of the same Educational Agency. If that is the position in the appellants' school, there is no force in the contention that as a result of the transfer of the school to another Educational Agency there is likelihood of the appellants being transferred which would not have been the case had the transfer not taken effect. Hence there is no substance in the contention that the transfer of the school should not be sanctioned because the appellants may become immediately liable to transfer to other schools under the same Educational Agency. What is required to be taken into account at the time of granting permission to transfer is the adverse effect that the transfer of the school would bring about on the working of the institution and the interests of the staff and the person to whom the Management is transferred by the very act of transfer. What is required to be taken into account at the time of granting permission to transfer is the adverse effect that the transfer of the school would bring about on the working of the institution and the interests of the staff and the person to whom the Management is transferred by the very act of transfer. It does not take into account the possible consequences that may take place subsequent to the date of transfer either as a result of increasing or decreasing the number of divisions or closing of a school or for other reasons. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Dismissed.