Judgment :- Petitioner is the Corporate Manager of All C.S.I. Schools in Malabar and Wynad. B.E.M. High School, Badagara and B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut are two of the schools managed by the petitioner. 4th respondent is the Headmistress of B.E.M.high School, Badagara. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut on 1-4-1989, consequent on the retirement of the then Headmaster. 4th respondent applied for a transfer to the B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. Her request, evidenced by Exts. P1 and P2 representations, were not disposed of by the petitioner. Hence she approached the Director of Public Instruction by filing Ext.P3 representation. Since there was delay in passing orders on that representation, she moved this Court by filing O.P.8865/1989. This Court, by judgment dated 23-10-1989, ordered the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of her representation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was made clear that the Director should afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Corporate Manager. Petitioner herein filed Exts.P6 and P7 statements before the first respondent. In compliance with the direction given by this Court, and after considering the statements filed by the petitioner and after hearing him, 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 order directing him to transfer the 4th respondent from B.E.M. High School, Badagara to B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut as Headmistress. This order is under challenge. 2. 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is averred therein that she is the seniormost Headmistress under the management of the petitioner. Her husband is employed in Calicut and her children are studying in Calicut. When a vacancy to the post of Headmistress arose in the B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut, she applied for transfer to that school. Though originally she was promised a transfer, it was denied and the post was filled up by promoting a teacher from the same school. In April, 1989 another vacancy arose on retirement. A teacher was put in charge as Headmaster. Since the B.E.M. Girls High School is exclusively a girls High School and she being the seniormost Headmistress, was hopeful of getting a transfer to that school. In April, 1989 another vacancy arose on retirement. A teacher was put in charge as Headmaster. Since the B.E.M. Girls High School is exclusively a girls High School and she being the seniormost Headmistress, was hopeful of getting a transfer to that school. Since petitioner did not respond to her request and was about to fill up the post by transferring a junior teacher, she moved the Director of Public Instruction under R.10 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules. 5th respondent was transferred from Malabar Christian College High School, Calicut and was posted as Headmaster of the Girls High School, Calicut. He is far junior to the 4th respondent. It is averred that petitioner should have taken up the question of transferring her to the school at Calicut before promoting and transferring a junior as Headmaster of the school. Order passed by the Director of Public Instruction has only done justice to her and that this Court is not to interfere with that order in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. It is not disputed before me that 4th respondent is the seniormost Headmaster/ Headmistress in the service of the petitioner, Corporate Management. Right from 1987 she was requesting the petitioner to give her a transfer to the B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. In 1987 it was declined. A vacancy of Headmaster in that school arose on 1-4-1989 consequent on retirement. At that time, no teacher from that school was promoted and posted as Headmaster of that school. Instead, petitioner promoted Sri. Frank Wesley Karam from M.C.C.H.S.,Calicut and posted him as Headmaster of B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. 4. Rule 10 of Chanter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules lays down the guidelines for effecting transfer of teachers from one school to another by educational agencies. As per that guidelines, the chief and for most criterion for transfer of Headmaster shall be the seniority. It also gives freedom to the educational agencies to deviate from the said criteria. Cases of deviation from the seniority norms are made appealable before the Director of Public Instruction. In the case on hand, 4th respondent, the seniormost Headmistress under the petitioner educational agency, wanted a transfer to B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. Vacancy of Headmaster. Headmistress in the school arose on 1-4-1989. Cases of deviation from the seniority norms are made appealable before the Director of Public Instruction. In the case on hand, 4th respondent, the seniormost Headmistress under the petitioner educational agency, wanted a transfer to B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. Vacancy of Headmaster. Headmistress in the school arose on 1-4-1989. Petitioner did not consider her claim for posting in the B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. Instead, he promoted Sri.Frank Wesley Karam, an H.S.A. working in M.C.C.H.S.,Calicut and posted him as Headmaster of B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. Said promotion and transfer, according tome, is in violation of the guidelines contained in R.10 of Chapter XIV(A). Aggrieved by that violation, 4th respondent approached the Director of Public Instruction as provided by clause (5) of R.10. The Director of Public Instruction, after considering the entire circumstances of the case, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, issued Ext.P5 order. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner would contend that R.10 will apply only when educational agency takes up the case of general transfer of Headmasters in the schools run by them. As and when issue relating to the general transfer of Headmasters is taken up, guidelines contained in R.10 are to apply. In a situation where one vacancy alone exists in one school and that is sought to be filled up, it is contended that R.10 has no application. A vacancy of a Headmaster arose in B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut on 1-4-1989, In filling up that vacancy, it is argued that the guidelines contained in R.10 cannot be pressed into service. I find it difficult to accept this argument. If this argument is accepted, R.10 will become otiose. An educational agency may have a limited number of schools. That agency may not take up the question of general transfer. As and when vacancy in the post of Headmaster arises, if the management is allowed to fill up the same, ignoring the claim for transfer of the senior most Headmaster, R.10 will become dead-letter. The Rule is not to be interpreted to make it a dead-letter. The intention of the Rule should be given effect to. 6. Petitioner has no case that the 4th respondent is incapable of managing the affairs of B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. In Ext.P6 statement filed by the petitioner before the Director, her efficiency has been conceded. She is the seniormost headmistress. The intention of the Rule should be given effect to. 6. Petitioner has no case that the 4th respondent is incapable of managing the affairs of B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut. In Ext.P6 statement filed by the petitioner before the Director, her efficiency has been conceded. She is the seniormost headmistress. She was pressing for a transfer to Calicut from 1987. That request has been denied by the petitioner for no valid reason. 7. 4th respondent, as stated earlier, is the senior-most Headmistress under the Corporate Management. She was praying for a transfer to the B.E.M. Girls High School, Calicut right from 1987. In 1987 and 1989 when vacancies arose in that school, her claim was rejected. In 1989 a person junior to her was promoted and posted to the school by transfer. This, according to me, was effected in violation of the guidelines contained in R.10. Such a violation is to be set at right by the Director of Public Instruction as provided by Clause (5) of R.10. Viewed in this light, I see no vice in Ext.P5 order passed by the Director of Public Instruction. In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this Original Petition. It is accordingly dismissed.