Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. We will deal with the Writ Appeal first. It will resolve the dispute in the Original Petitions. 2. The issue is whether the first appellant ought to have appointed the second respondent as Higher Secondary School Teacher (English) against the vacancy earmarked for in service candidates on commencement of the academic year 1999-2000 during which five vacancies of such teachers had been filled up. 3. As per Exhibit P2 order prescribing method of appointment, twenty-five per cent of the vacancies shall be earmarked for qualified High School Assistants and Primary School Teachers working under the management. The first appellant is the Manager of the School concerned. The Higher Secondary course was started in the year 1998. During that year 12 posts were sanctioned. The first appellant did not fill up all the vacancies. Post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Hindi) was kept vacant. Even though the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 was in service as UPSA (Hindi), he was not promoted against that vacancy. He claims that he was qualified during the year 1998-99 even on the strength o Exhibit P2 Government Order in that Original Petition. 4. During the year 1999-2000 out of the five vacancies to be filled up, one was that of Higher Secondary School Teacher (English) and another Higher Secondary School Teacher (Hindi) which was vacant from the previous year onwards. The first appellant preferred the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003, a Hindi Teacher in the quota for inservice candidates and filled up the other posts including that of English Teacher by direct recruitment. Against the post of English Teacher the second appellant was appointed. This was objected to by the second respondent in the Writ Appeal contending that she, being senior to the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003, ought to have been preferred for appointment against the post of English Teacher setting it apart to inservice candidates. It was filled up by direct recruitment. In other words, it is contended that when steps for filling up five vacancies were taken up during the year 1999-2000, 25% thereof should have been given for inservice candidates and while considering such incumbent the person with lengthier service among the aspirants should have been considered first and the remaining 75% should have been reserved for direct recruitment. In other words, it is contended that when steps for filling up five vacancies were taken up during the year 1999-2000, 25% thereof should have been given for inservice candidates and while considering such incumbent the person with lengthier service among the aspirants should have been considered first and the remaining 75% should have been reserved for direct recruitment. In such a situation, the second respondent, who had lengthier service, ought to have been appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (English), rather than the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Hindi). The department found this contention in favour of the second respondent as is seen from Exhibit P7, of course, on a different reason based on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 7.12.1999. But the facts remain that the junior hand, namely, the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 was preferred for appointment from among existing teachers in the school on 2.8.1999 and the second appellant was directly appointed as English Teacher with effect from 2.8.1999. Therefore, the position of the rules or orders, obtainable as on that date, ought to have been considered. 5. Exhibit P7 was challenged on that count by the second respondent. Even if the position on 2.8.1999 or 28.9.1999 is taken note of, no order is produced before us to show that the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 was having lengthier service than the second respondent. On the other hand it is admitted that the second respondent is, in any way, senior to the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003. Therefore, he ought to have been considered for the post for which he was qualified rather than preferring a junior hand like the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003. 6. At this juncture, it is submitted on behalf of the first appellant that Exhibit P2 order prescribing the ratio of 25:75 between promotion and direct recruitment does not stipulate that the Manager should fill up first the post to which senior incumbent is entitled. When there is no such stipulation for regulating appointment or promotion based on seniority in Exhibit P2 or in any other order, the Manager being the authority invested with power to make appointment and promotion of his own staff, has to follow a reasonable method. When there is no such stipulation for regulating appointment or promotion based on seniority in Exhibit P2 or in any other order, the Manager being the authority invested with power to make appointment and promotion of his own staff, has to follow a reasonable method. The reasonable method is that when there are several teachers belonging to different subjects entitled for consideration to few vacancies, those posts to which senior incumbents are to be considered shall be set apart for quota of inservice candidates, so that senior incumbent shall not be superseded by a junior incumbent. Otherwise it will be arbitrary and discriminatory. 7. Admittedly, there were five vacancies to be filled up during the year 1999-2000. One shall be from among the existing teachers on any count following Exhibit P2. The eligible persons at that point of time, were the second respondent and the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003. The former was senior. He was qualified for the post of English Teacher. That was available. The latter was junior. He was qualified for the post of Hindi Teacher. That was also available. But the Manager could prefer only one incumbent following the reasonable method. Senior shall be preferred, ordinarily. No extraordinary situation is pointed out. So the Manager ought to have appointed the second respondent. 8. At this juncture, the contention of the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003, the Hindi teacher, that he was even qualified during the year 1998-99 for appointment to the post of Hindi Teacher which was kept vacant is to be considered. If he was eligible during the year 1998-99, necessarily, there would have been no vacancy in the year 1999-2000 for appointing an inservice candidate including the second respondent. The averments in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 is that he was qualified in the year 1998-99, as evidenced by Exhibit P2 marked therein. It is only a proceedings of the Director of Higher Secondary Education. He cannot prescribe qualification for a post. It has to be done by Government. It is clear from Exhibit P2 that the circular referred to therein applies only to appointments in departmental Schools. Admittedly, the school concerned is an aided Higher Secondary School. So Exhibit P2 cannot advance the case of the petitioner any more. He cannot prescribe qualification for a post. It has to be done by Government. It is clear from Exhibit P2 that the circular referred to therein applies only to appointments in departmental Schools. Admittedly, the school concerned is an aided Higher Secondary School. So Exhibit P2 cannot advance the case of the petitioner any more. On the other hand we see from Exhibit R3(a) produced along with the counter affidavit of the third respondent, who is none other than the second respondent in the other Original Petition that the petitioner therein became qualified for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher only on the strength of Exhibit R3(a) order dated 20.9.1999. He did not possess B.Ed. in Hindi. He had passed only LTT qualification. It is prescribed as sufficient qualification for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher only as per Exhibit R3(a) dated 20.9.1999. That means, during the year 1998-99 the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 was not qualified to be promoted as High Secondary School Teacher (Hindi) as he did not have B.Ed. Degree. That petitioner was appointed by the Manage as H.S.S. Teacher (Hindi) only with effect from 28.9.1999 after he became qualified only just ten days ago as per Exhibit R3(a) dated 20.9.1999. Even before that, a qualified hand like the second respondent was available for being appointed as English Teacher. But in the existing vacant post the second appellant was appointed on 2.8.1999. At that time the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 was not even qualified for promotion. The post reserved to be filled up by inservice candidates ought to have been filled up by appointing the second respondent on 2.8.1999 itself when an English hand has been appointed. Therefore, we find that there is nothing for interference with the impugned judgment in W.A.No.1057 of 2002 and in O.P.No.12706 of 2003. In other words, the second respondent in the Writ Appeal will have to be taken as duly appointed, for purpose of seniority, on a date earlier than the appointment of the junior incumbent, the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003, who was continued at the volition of the Manager as Higher Secondary School Teacher, though on promotion against a vacancy reserved for direct recruitment, which is not impugned by anybody else. Therefore, which is not impugned by anybody else. Therefore, W.A.No.1057 of 2002 and O.P.No.12706 of 2003 stand dismissed. 9. Therefore, which is not impugned by anybody else. Therefore, W.A.No.1057 of 2002 and O.P.No.12706 of 2003 stand dismissed. 9. Necessarily, when this declaration is there, O.P.No.7823 of 2003 filed by the second respondent in the Writ Appeal stands allowed to the limited extent that she shall be recorded as senior to the petitioner in O.P.No.12706 of 2003 for the purpose of seniority and other benefits except arrears of salary. In the light of the aforesaid finding it is only appropriate that the Government shall consider payment of salary to the second appellant, but with no attendant benefits, if no other incumbent had been paid against the sanctioned post of English Teacher during the relevant period he had actually worked.