Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider him for appointment to the post of Headmaster in the third respondent-school. 2. Petitioner was originally appointed in a regular vacancy as H.S. A. on 13.7.1983. Petitioner men completed 12 years of continuous service as on 12.7.1995. He passed the test in Kerala Education Act and Rules conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission as well as Departmental Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Petitioner submits he is the seniormost qualified teacher to be appointed as Headmaster in the school. 3. Regular vacancy of Headmaster in the school arose on 31.3.1998. Since no action was taken to appoint the petitioner as Headmaster, he submitted Ext. P3 representation before the management. He also preferred a representation before the District Educational Officer. While so, the Manager appointed the fourth respondent as teacher-in-charge of the school without considering the claim of the petitioner for the post of Headmaster. A proposal was sent by the Manager to the District Educational Officer for approval. District Educational Officer rejected the request of the Manager vide Ext. P5 order dated 22.4.1998. District Educational Officer pointed out that petitioner has got requisite qualification for being appointed as Headmaster of the school. Third respondent then look up the matter before the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, and the same is pending consideration. 4. I heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 contended that the institution is entitled to get the benefit of Art.30 of the Constitution of India. In order to claim the benefit of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India, third respondent should show that it is a religious or linguistic minority and that the institution was established by it. Apart from mere assertion there is absolutely no material to show that third respondent-institution has been established by a minority community. 5. In the instant case, we are concerned with the question as to whether petitioner is qualified to be appointed as Headmaster of the school. With regard to qualification of the petitioner, there is no dispute. However, management maintained the stand that since petitioner has relinquished his claim for promotion permanently, he cannot raise a claim that he should be appointed as Headmaster. Reliance was placed on Ext. R3(a). 6. With regard to qualification of the petitioner, there is no dispute. However, management maintained the stand that since petitioner has relinquished his claim for promotion permanently, he cannot raise a claim that he should be appointed as Headmaster. Reliance was placed on Ext. R3(a). 6. Appointment of Headmaster shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared and maintained by the management. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the seniormost person qualified to be promoted as Headmaster. In this connection, it is profitable to refer to relevant Rule. R.44(1) is extracted below: "44(1). The appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared and maintained under clauses (a) and (b) as the case may be of R.34. The Manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the Rules laid down in the matter. A teacher if he is aggrieved by such appointment will have the right. of appeal to the Department. 1RWH: - Whenever the Manager intends to appoint a person as Headmaster other than the senior claimant, the Manager shall obtain a written consent from such senior claimant, renouncing his claim permanently. Such consent should have the approval of the educational officer concerned". Contention of respondents 3 and 4 is that petitioner relinquished his right to he appointed as Headmaster. It is evident from the Note to R.44(1) that whenever the Manager intends to appoint a person as Headmaster other than the senior claimant, the Manager shall obtain a written consent from such a senior claimant, renouncing his claim permanently. Such concession shall have the approval of the educational officer concerned. It is not as if Manager can get a letter from the petitioner and treat that as a permanent relinquishment for all years to come. 7. In the instant case, respondents 3 and 4 relied on Ext. R3(a) dated 26.7.1983. First of all, it has not received the approval of the educational authority. Secondly, going by the Note itself the said relinquishment cannot be used on each and every occasion. The expression "Whenever the Manager intends to appoint" would show that whenever manager overlooks the claim of a senior teacher to be appointed as Headmaster, manager has to get a written consent from such senior claimant renouncing his claim permanently. In other words, there cannot be any permanent relinquishment to the post of Headmaster. Apart from that, Ext. The expression "Whenever the Manager intends to appoint" would show that whenever manager overlooks the claim of a senior teacher to be appointed as Headmaster, manager has to get a written consent from such senior claimant renouncing his claim permanently. In other words, there cannot be any permanent relinquishment to the post of Headmaster. Apart from that, Ext. R3(a) cannot have any legal validity, since no approval was obtained from the educational officer concerned. Therefore, the same cannot be given effect to for all years to come. 8. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the management's stand that petitioner cannot be appointed by virtue of Ext. R.3 (a) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Headmaster in the school. Further, fourth respondent was only a Headmaster in the L.P. Section. She is sought to be posted as Headmaster in the High School section. I am of the view, going by the decision of this Court in Bhaskaran Unnithan v. Sarasamma, 1990 (2) KLT 543, fourth respondent can stake her claim only in the L.P. Section, but not in the High School section. In that view of the matter also, fourth respondent cannot be posted as Headmaster. Original Petition is allowed as above directing the third respondent to pass orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.