N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claims that St. Joseph s Aided elementary School at Guntakal, the 2nd respondent, is a minority institution, and that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in that School on 20-1-1964. The 1st respondent-D. E. O. , Anantapur, by his proceedings Rc. No. l2266/b2/88 dated 14-6-1990 directed bifurcation of elementary section from the High School and further directed the school management to promote the senior-most teacher in the Elementary School as its head Master. Petitioner claims that she is working in the Elementary School since bifurcation and as per the seniority list of teachers prepared, she stands at serial No. 4 whereas the 3rd respondent, Manikyam, stands at serial No. 9. According to the petitioner, she was promoted as Head mistress with effect from 27-6-1997, consequent on retirement of one b. Sarojamma, by proceedings Rc. No. 6/ spl/97, dated 27-6-1997 of the 2nd respondent. Her only grievance is that without issuing any notice to her, the d. E. O. issued the impugned proceedings dated 6-8-1999 directing the school management to appoint the 3rd respondent as Head Mistress. She filed this writ petition seeking to quash the abovesaid proceedings dated 6-8-1999 of the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) ON 30-8-1999, while admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay of the impugned proceedings dated 6-8-1999. ( 3 ) FIRST respondent-D. E. O. , Anantapur, filed counter, inter alia, stating that the school in question is an aided institution and not a minority institution; the impugned proceedings are in accordance with the relevant rules and G. Os. in force. Petitioner is not even a Secondary Grade teacher, and she is only possessing elementary grade certificate with VIII class, and so she is not eligible to be appointed as head Mistress. Contrary to G. O. Rt. No. 896, dated 16-6-1999, the management has appointed the petitioner as Head Mistress. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent filed her counter contending that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of government or the Director of School education as a necessary party-respondent and also for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the relevant rules. She stated that she took charge as Head mistress of the school on 30-8-1999 pursuant to the proceedings dated 14-8-1999 of the second respondent. She stated that she took charge as Head mistress of the school on 30-8-1999 pursuant to the proceedings dated 14-8-1999 of the second respondent. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the 2nd respondent reverting her to the post of teacher from the post of Head Mistress pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st respondent-D. E. O. which proceedings are issued at the instance of the 3rd respondent is illegal, contrary to the Rules, and opposed to the principles of natural justice and that no notice was given to her by the 2nd respondent before reverting her. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for school Education appearing for the 1st respondent justified the proceedings of the 1st respondent and submitted that the petitioner is not having the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Head mistress and all the Rules and G. Os issued by the Government in this behalf will apply to the 2nd respondent-school. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the 3rd respondent contended that the third respondent is the senior-most qualified teacher in the school and the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Head Mistress. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent assumed charge as head Mistress on 30-8-1999. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is whether the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Head Mistress to the post of teacher is not in accordance with the relevant rules, and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in this writ petition. ( 9 ) TWO teachers of a school are fighting this legal battle for the post of Head mistress in this case. Unfortunately, the management of the school-the 2nd respondent herein did not file its counter nor vindicated its stand in the matter. ( 10 ) A perusal of the material available on record and the facts narrated above would indicate that the 3rd respondent s appointment as Head Mistress is in accordance with the rules and seniority of the eligible and qualified teachers working in the school. The impugned proceeding of the DEO, Anantapur, in RC. ( 10 ) A perusal of the material available on record and the facts narrated above would indicate that the 3rd respondent s appointment as Head Mistress is in accordance with the rules and seniority of the eligible and qualified teachers working in the school. The impugned proceeding of the DEO, Anantapur, in RC. No. 2344/a-8/98 dated 6-8-1999 seems to have been issued as a sequel to the representation dated 2-8-1999 of one A. S. Prabhavathi, s. G. Assistant working in the school, claiming the post of Head Mistress of the school and also pursuant to the letter of the 2nd respondent-school seeking instructions/permission from the DEO to appoint the third respondent as Head mistress of the school. In the impugned proceedings dt. 6-8-1999 of the D. E. O. number of other proceedings issued by him earlier to the 2nd respondent, instructing the 2nd respondent to follow the rules for appointment of Head Mistress, are adverted to. The DEO even quoted the proceedings dt. 24-2-1987 in Rc. No. 2374/b-1-1/85 of the director of School Education, Hyderabad, addressed to all the DEOs and District development Officers of Zilla Praja parishads in the State which is to the effect that in primary schools where there are four or more elementary grade teachers, S. G. B. T. teacher has to be appointed as Head mistress of the school. In G. O. Rt. No. 896, education Department, dated 16-6-1999, the government directed that the appointment of Head Mistress in aided elementary and u. P. school shall be made by the management on the basis of seniority-cum-merit of the qualified teachers working under the same management. It is categorically stated by the 1st respondent-DEO in his counter-affidavit that the 2nd respondent-school is an aided institution, and not a minority institution, and all the government Orders and directives will apply to the said school. The incumbents who are qualified to hold the post of Head mistress and seniors to the 3rd respondent had already declined promotion as Head mistress and the 3rd respondent is the next qualified and eligible secondary grade teacher working in the school to hold the post of Head Mistress. The petitioner is only possessing elementary grade certificate with VIII class, whereas the 3rd respondent is holding M. A. , B. Ed. , qualification. The petitioner is not even a Secondary Grade teacher. The petitioner is only possessing elementary grade certificate with VIII class, whereas the 3rd respondent is holding M. A. , B. Ed. , qualification. The petitioner is not even a Secondary Grade teacher. Moreover, as per the instructions of the Director of School Education dated 24-2-1987 (referred to above), the petitioner cannot be appointed as Head Mistress as she is not the senior-most qualified and eligible teacher among the Secondary Grade teachers working in the school. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank vs. N. G. Bank Officers Association, contended that the post of Head Mistress has to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and since the petitioner is senior to the 3rd respondent, preference has to be given to the petitioner for appointment as Head mistress. In the above Full Bench decision, the learned Judges, while explaining the concept of seniority-cum-merit for effecting promotions, ruled that even though a senior is less meritorious than his/ her junior, preference shall normally be given to the senior for effecting promotions, and further held that comparative assessment of merit of various candidates participated in the selection is not required to be made. ( 12 ) THE above decision of the Full Bench, with great respect, has no application to the facts of this case. The learned Judges, in the above decision, never said that an unqualified and ineligible senior is also entitled for promotion. That is not the principle laid down in that decision. The petitioner might have joined the service of the school much earlier to the 3rd respondent, and might have been categorized as senior to R. 3. But, she is not having the qualification and eligibility criteria as laid down by the Government in g. O. Rt. No. 896, Education Department, dated 16-6-1999 to hold the post of Head mistress. ( 13 ) COMING to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no notice is given to the petitioner before reverting her to the post of teacher from the post of Head Mistress, it must be noted that the petitioner cannot be said to be ignorant of the long sequence of events prior to her reversion. ( 13 ) COMING to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no notice is given to the petitioner before reverting her to the post of teacher from the post of Head Mistress, it must be noted that the petitioner cannot be said to be ignorant of the long sequence of events prior to her reversion. Apart from that, the initial promotion of the petitioner as Head mistress itself is contrary to the rules in force and the repeated directions of the d. E. O. issued to the 2nd respondent and the deo had set right the things as per rules, therefore, no notice is required to be given to the petitioner before her reversion. What all the D. E. O. did in this case is only to set right the things as per Rules. ( 14 ) YET another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent-school, as a minority institution, is free to choose and adopt any manner of promotion to the post of Head Mistress depending upon their needs even though it may be inconsistent with any statutory rules, has no legs to stand inasmuch as the 2nd respondent school is receiving aid from the Government and the school is not at all a minority institution. The said fact is categorically stated by the D. E. O.-1st respondent in his counter-affidavit. ( 15 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted on any ground, as the same is in accordance with the relevant rules and the Government orders applicable for promotion to the post of Head Mistress. The petitioner failed to make out any case for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and the same, deserves to be and, is hereby dismissed without costs.