Judgment :- 4th respondent is a Corporate Management. It has many schools. In a la vacancy of Lower Division Clerk, in one of the schools belonging to the 4th respond Petitioner was appointed. That vacancy was between 7-1-1985 to 6-4-1985. Later will another leave vacancy arose in one of the schools run by the 4th respondent, petitioner appointed from 13-11-1985. Since the permanent incumbent expired during I vacancy, petitioner was appointed in that regular vacancy with effect from 29-12-1i Above appointments were not approved by the District Educational Officers on ground that 4th respondent ought to have promoted two Peons who were fully quali and posted as Lower Division Clerks. 4th respondent took up the matter in ap I before the Deputy Director of Education and the Director of Public Instruction will success. Thereupon, petitioner and 4th respondent preferred revision petitions ui R.92 of Chap.X!V-A of Kerala Education Rules before Government. By Ext.PS of Government rejected both revision petitions. Hence this original petition. 2. Respondents 5 and 6 were working as Peons when the vacancies of L Division Clerks, to which petitioner was appointed, arose. Respondents Sand 61 appointed long subsequent to 1-10-1964. So, their conditions of services are gave by Chapter XXIV-B of the Kerala Education Rules. Rule 7 of Chapter XXIV¬Bi alia slates that rules regarding appointment, promotion, seniority etc. containing Chapter XIV-A applicable to teachers of aided school shall mutatis-mutandis ap I non-teaching staff in aided schools. Note-1 to Rule 1 of Chapter XIV-A provides J member of the non-teaching) staff under the category of Clerks, peons, etc. shi eligible for appointment as teachers, provided he has the prescribed qualifies As per R.43 of Chap.XIV-A, vacancies in the higher grade of pay shall be filled I promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade according to seniority. The com effect of the above provisions is that a qualified peon is entitled to be promoted I cadre of Lower Division Clerk in preference to a direct recruit. When vacancy of! Division Clerk arose in the school run by the 4th respondent on 7-1-1985, response and 6 were fully qualified to be promoted to that post. Their claim for promoi protected by Rule 43 of Chap. XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules. When vacancy of! Division Clerk arose in the school run by the 4th respondent on 7-1-1985, response and 6 were fully qualified to be promoted to that post. Their claim for promoi protected by Rule 43 of Chap. XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules. Petitioner's apj ment to that vacancy has gone to affect' the rights of these respondents adverse educational authorities and the Government were justified in refusing to appro appointment of the petitioner. In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this Original Pa It is accordingly dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs.