Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. Same, issues arise for consideration in these appeals. Writ Appeal 309/1993 is filed by Sri.T.P. Rajendran, petitioner in O.P.6182/1989. Manager of H.M.Y.S. High School, Kolluvallikkad, Moothakunnam, who was the petitioner in O.P.6178/1989, is the appellant in Writ Appeal 333/1993. One Smt.P.N. Sathy, who was working as a part-time Menial in the school, filed O.P.3727/1990 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Manager of the school to implement the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government directing her appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the School. These Original Petitions were disposed of by a learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 11-2-1993. Sri. Rajendran and the Manager of the school challenge the said decision. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: - Smt.P.N. Sathy was appointed as part-time Menial in the aided school on 8-1-1985. At that time, the school was not a complete High School. Her appointment was approved by District Educational Officer by order dated 1-3-1985. She looks the S.S.L.C. examination conducted in March 1986. Result of that examination was published on 27-5-1986. She came out successful in that examination. According to her, this fact, namely her success in the S.S.L.C. examination, was immediately intimated to the Manager of the School. The school became a complete High School during the academic year 1986-87. Consequently, one post each in the category of Clerk, Peon and full-time Menial were sanctioned with effect from 2-6-1986. The post of part-time Menial, which was in existence, was abolished. Anticipating the vacancy of Lower Division Clerk and Peon, Manager of the school-invited applications for filling up these posts by a notice dated 13-5-1986. Last date for receipt of application was fixed as 17-5-1986. It appears that management took a decision on 18-5-1986 to appoint Sri. Rajendran as Clerk and one Sri.K.R. Babu as Peon in the additionally sanctioned posts. Smt. Salhy was appointed to the post of full-time Menial. Aggrieved by the denial of appointment in the higher post, Sathy filed appeal before the District Educational Officer on 10-6-1986. Since the appeal was not taken up for consideration by the District Educational Officer even after the lapse of a reasonable lime, she moved this Court by filing O.P.8330/1986. Smt. Salhy was appointed to the post of full-time Menial. Aggrieved by the denial of appointment in the higher post, Sathy filed appeal before the District Educational Officer on 10-6-1986. Since the appeal was not taken up for consideration by the District Educational Officer even after the lapse of a reasonable lime, she moved this Court by filing O.P.8330/1986. By judgment dated 5-11-1986, this Court directed the District Educational Officer to dispose of the appeal before granting approval to the appointment of Sri. Rajendran as Clerk. 3. District Educational Officer by his order dated 6-1-1987 held that denial of promotion to Salhy to the post of Lower Division Clerk was illegal and violative of the Rules contained in the Kerala Education Rules. It was also held that Sathy was the legitimate claimant to the post of Clerk. Consequently, he refused to approve the appointment of Rajendran as Clerk. The issue was then taken up in appeal by the Manager of the school as well as Rajendran before the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam. Deputy Director of Education heard all the parties in detail. By order dated 10-9-1987, he confirmed the order passed by the District Educational Officer and dismissed the appeal. Against this order passed by the Deputy Director, Manager of the School and Rajendran preferred appeals before the Director of Public Instruction. That appeal was rejected on 18-6-1988 and affirmed the orders passed by the subordinate authorities. Thereupon, Manager of the School and Rajendran filed revision petitions before the Government. Government dismissed those revision petitions by G.O.(Rl.) No.1884/89/G.Edn. Dated 12-6-1989. Manager of the School and Rajendran filed Original Petitions 6178/1989 and 6182/1989 respectively questioning the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government, referred to earlier. This Court did not grant slay of operation of the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government. Even so, Manager of the school did not implement those orders. Consequently, Smt.Sathy moved this Court by filing O.P.3727/1990 for compelling the Manager to implement the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government in her favour. 4. This Court did not grant slay of operation of the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government. Even so, Manager of the school did not implement those orders. Consequently, Smt.Sathy moved this Court by filing O.P.3727/1990 for compelling the Manager to implement the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government in her favour. 4. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellants were that the manager of the school was not informed of the qualification acquired by Sathy before he filled up the posts on 2-6-1986; that Sathy had not put in any application claiming the post of Lower Division Clerk; and that post of part-lime Menial held by Sathy was not a feeder category for filling up the post of Lower Division Clerk. We shall proceed to deal with these arguments in detail. 5. The fact that Sathy was holding the post of a part-time Menial in the school with effect from 8-1-1985 is not in dispute. It has come out in evidence that she took the S.S.L.C. examination conducted in March 1986. The result of that examination was published on 27-5-1986. Sathy came out successful in that examination. This fact is also not in challenge. The contention raised by the appellants is that the Manager of the school was not informed of her success in the S.S.L.C. examination on any day prior to 2-6-1986. So, on 2-6-1986 the Manager of the school appointed Rajendran in the post of Lower Division Clerk, which was sanctioned to the school with effect from 2-6-1986. In the orders issued by the educational authorities, it is specifically stated that Manager was aware of Sathy's success in the S.S.L.C. examination prior to 2-6-1986. District Educational Officer in the order dated 6-1-1987 stated: - "Manager does not deny about her (Sathy's) passing of S.S.L.C. Examination and of UCr request for promotion". --------- Before the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam, the Manager advanced an argument that he was not a ware of the possession of S.S.L.C. qualification by Smt.P.N. Sathy while issuing the appointment order on 2-6-1986. This argument was not accepted by the Deputy Director. --------- Before the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam, the Manager advanced an argument that he was not a ware of the possession of S.S.L.C. qualification by Smt.P.N. Sathy while issuing the appointment order on 2-6-1986. This argument was not accepted by the Deputy Director. The identical contention of the Manager of the school raised before the Director of Public Instruction was dealt with in his order dated 18-6-198Sby observing: - "The argument of the Manager that he was unaware of the fact that Smt.P.N. Sathi was qualified for promotion as Clerk cannot be accepted since she had informed him of this before appointing Sri.T.P. Rajendran as Clerk in the school on 2-6-1986". While disposing of the revision petitions, wherein the identical contention was raised by the Manager of the school, Government in its order dated 12-6-1989 accepted the contention of Smt.Sathy that she had given intimation by registered post to the Manager on 28-5-1986 regarding her success in the S.S.L.C. examination. The above finding of fact arrived at by the educational authorities and the Government is not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the powers under Art.226 of the Constitution. Further, Smt.Sathy in her counter affidavit in O.P.6182/1989 produced a copy of her representation dated 28-5-1986 sent to the Manager as Ext.R6 (a). In that representation, she had averred: - "I have passed S.S.L.C. Examination conducted in March, 1986. My register Number is 496930 and. the result has 'been published on 27-5-1986". She further stated that she is the only qualified persoq. Eligible for promotion to the higher post. She, therefore, requested the Manager of the school to make necessary arrangements to promote her as Clerk with effect from the re-opening of the school during 1986-87. That representation dated 28-5-1986 was sent by registered post. The Manager of the school, as per Exhibit R6 (b), accepted the registered letter on 29-5-1986. Thus, over and above the finding arrived at by the educational authorities and the Government, Exhibits R6 (a) and R6 (b) produced along with counter affidavit filed by Sathy in O.P.6182/1989 prove beyond even a shadow of doubt that the Manager of the school was informed by her of her success in the S.S.L.C. examination and also prayed for promotion to the post of Clerk. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the first contention raised by the appellants in these appeals. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the first contention raised by the appellants in these appeals. 6. Chapter XX1V-A of the Kerala Education Rules deals with non-teaching staff of aided schools. As per Rule 1 of that Chapter, in schools with Standard VIII as the highest, one Peon and one part-time Sweeper/Watcher etc. can alone be appointed. Prior to 2-6-1986, the school, with which we arc concerned in these Writ Appeals, was an incomplete High School with Standard VIII as the highest class. In such a school, there could be one Pconand a part-time Sweeper/Watcher etc. Salhy was the part-time Menial working in the school. As per Explanation (I) to Rule 1 of Chapter XXIV-A, the posts of Sweepers and other staff mentioned in the rule shall be the feeder category for appointment to the post of Peon. Explanation (II) states that the post of Lower Division Clerk shall be filled up by promotion of Peons, Sweepers and other staff, if they possess the required qualification. From this provision, it is clear that Sweepers, Watchers, etc., whether full-time or part-time, arc in the feeder category for filling up the post of Lower Division Clerk. But, if there are more than one claimant for appointment as Clerk under these categories, preference should be given in the order of Peons, Sweepers and other staff. It means that part-lime Menial will come after Peons and full-time Menial. In the absence of qualified Peons and full-time Menial, the part-time Menial should be considered for the post of Lower Division Clerk, provided such person possesses the required qualification for the post of Lower Division Clerk. It is common case that the person who held the post of Peon in the school is not qualified to hold the post of Lower Division Clerk. Sathy, the part-time Menial, is fully qualified to hold the post of Lower Division Clerk, she having passed the S.S.L.C. examination on 27-5-1986. 7. Rule 7 of Chap.XXIV-B of the Kerala Education Rules provides that Rules regarding appointment, promotion, seniority, etc. contained in Chapter XIV-A which are applicable to teachers of aided schools shall mutatis mutandis apply to the non-teaching staff in the aided schools. Therefore, one has to refer to the provisions contained in Chapter Xiy-A of the Kerala Education Rules to note the provision regarding promotion to the higher category. contained in Chapter XIV-A which are applicable to teachers of aided schools shall mutatis mutandis apply to the non-teaching staff in the aided schools. Therefore, one has to refer to the provisions contained in Chapter Xiy-A of the Kerala Education Rules to note the provision regarding promotion to the higher category. Note (1) to R. I of Chapter XIV-A provides that a member of the non-teaching staff under the category of Clerks, Peons, Sweepers and other staff shall also be eligible for appointment as teacher, provided he has the prescribed qualification. R.43 of Chapter XIV-A further states that vacancies in the higher grade of pay shall be filled up by promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade, according loscniority. Accumbency effect of the above provisions is that a qualified Peon, Sweeper, or a member of the other staff shall be eligible for appointment as Clerk. So also, a Clerk, Peon, Sweeper or other staff shall also be eligible for appointment as teacher. The only condition to be satisfied by them is that they must have the prescribed qualification for the post. An identical view was taken by one of us (Sreedharan, J.) in Stella v. State of Kerala (1992 (2) KLT 533). The above mentioned statutory provisions cast a legal duty on the Managers of the aided schools to promote the qualified member of the staff in the above mentioned categories to the higher cadres. For giving promotion to those qualified members of the staff, they need not put in any application to the Manager. It is the Managers' duty to give them the promotion. Viewed in this light, we find it difficult to accept the contention raised by the appellants that Sathy was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Clerk, which post was sanctioned with effect from 2-6-1986, without an application having been filed by her. Manager of the school was legally bound to promote Sathy to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Therefore, we overrule the second and third contentions raised by the appellants. 8. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the learned single judge took note of the hostile attitude taken by the Manager against Sathy. Manager of the school was legally bound to promote Sathy to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Therefore, we overrule the second and third contentions raised by the appellants. 8. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the learned single judge took note of the hostile attitude taken by the Manager against Sathy. It appears that the Manager of the school has initialed disciplinary proceedings against Sathy on the allegation that she had not taken leave for writing the S.S.L.C. examination for six days in March, 1986 and that she had tampered with the Attendance Register. It was further noted ]hat even though memo of charges were issued way back in 1988, no enquiry as such had been conducted against her till date. Be that as it may, the so-called disciplinary proceedings initiated against her by the manager can be no ground for denying her promotion to the post of Clerk with effect from 2-6-1986. We are in entire agreement wilh the declaration given by the learned Single Judge that Sathy will be entitled to salary, other emoluments and all service benefits as Lower Division Clerk with effect from 2-6-1986. 9. In the instant case, educational authorities and the Government issued valid orders directing the Manager of the school to give Smt.Salhy promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Those lawful orders issued by the authorities and the Government have been violated by the Manager even an flcr his attempt to get those orders stayed failed before this Court. It is seen that Director of Public Instruction and the Depuly Director of Education, Ernakulam have initialed proceedings against the Manager under R.7 of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the Original Petition directed respondents 2 and 3 to proceed with that action in accordance with law. We are in respectful agreement with That helicon. In view of what has been staled above, we find no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.