Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. These writ appeals arise from the common judgment in O.P.No.5686/01 and O.P.No.31697/02. 2. The petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01 claimed the post of Headmistress of Mannam Memorial High School, Vilakkudy, Punalur, as she was overlooked. The manager appointed the petitioner in O.P.No.31697/02 in that post. There was several litigations concerning the matter including disciplinary action against the petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01. Finally, based on a direction from this court, the Manager the appellant in W.A.No.2157/03 considered her claim and passed Ext.P9 marked in O.P.No.5686/01 to the effect that, as there was disciplinary action and criminal case pending against her, she could not have been appointed as Headmistress. Consequently, Ext.P10 order was issued by the Manager appointing an enquiry officer to hold an enquiry against her. Earlier she had been placed under suspension and was later reinstated. 3. During the pendency of the said original petition, her claim for the post of Headmistress had been finally considered and adjudicated by the Government as is revealed by Ext.P11 marked in O.P.No.31697/02. Government, in that order, upheld the claim of the petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01. That order was challenged by the appointee – the petitioner in O.P.No.31697/02. Therefore, in the light of Ext.P11, there arises no question of considering the challenge against Ext.P9 marked in O.P.No.5686/01. It is also now agreed by the counsel on either side that the disciplinary action had never been proceeded against the petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01 and that she had retired by now. Therefore, there arises no question of considering the challenge against Ext.P10 as well. 4. In the meantime, Ext.P13 marked in O.P.No.5686/01 was also passed by the District Educational Officer, Punalur, based on a direction from this Court, regularizing the period during which she had been kept under suspension and treating it as eligible leave. Though O.P.No.5686/01 was nor formally amended incorporating the challenge against Ext.P13 order, it was produced and her grievance against it had been voiced in an affidavit filed along with I.A.No.8121/03. That much is sufficient as regards O.P.No.5686/01 because, the main challenge was against Ext.P11 marked in O.P.No.31697/02 at the instance of the appointee for the post of Headmaster, the appellant in W.A.No.1623/03 and 2051/03. 5. The bone of contention is who among these two should have been considered for the vacancy of Headmaster, which arose on retirement of the then incumbent. 5. The bone of contention is who among these two should have been considered for the vacancy of Headmaster, which arose on retirement of the then incumbent. The claim of the petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01 was resisted mainly based on Ext.P8 marked in O.P.No.31697/02 which is, according to the appointee as well as the Manager, a consent, obtained as provided in the Note under rule 44(1) Chapter XIV A K.E.R. to appoint a junior incumbent viz., the petitioner in O.P.No.31697/02 (the appellant in W.A.Nos.1623/03 and 2051/03). So everything depend upon the legal efficacy of Ext.P8. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01 was the seniormost incumbent in the school when the vacancy arose on 1.5.1996. There is no contention that she had not been qualified. Rule 44(1) Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules obliges the Manager, while making appointment to the post of Headmaster, to follow the seniority of the incumbents concerned, ordinarily. Of course, going by the Note under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 44, the Manager can prefer a junior incumbent provided, the senior incumbent consents for that. Therefore, appointment of a junior incumbent can be made only after obtaining consent from the seniormost eligible incumbent. The Note further provides that “such consent shall have the approval of the Educational Officer concerned.” Thus consent is a pre-requisite to prefer a junior incumbent. Such consent shall be an efficacious one. It shall always have the approval. Then alone it will be an efficacious consent. Therefore, such approval to the consent is a pre-requisite, so far as the Manager is concerned, to overlook the seniority. Ext.P8 is the consent in this case, whereby the petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01 had allegedly renounced her claim for appointment as Headmistress. But no one has a case before us that any approval to the said alleged consent dated 29.6.1996 had been obtained until the junior hand had been appointed as Headmaster as per Ext.P5 dated 2.9.1996 marked in O.P.No.31697/02. When the statute requires that there shall be a such consent and that consent shall have the approval of the Educational Officer, necessarily, it is a pre-requisite for the Manager to prefer a junior incumbent. When a junior incumbent was thus preferred for appointment as Headmaster as per Ext.P5 dated 2.9.1996, approval to such consent had not been obtained. Even on today, there is no approval. When a junior incumbent was thus preferred for appointment as Headmaster as per Ext.P5 dated 2.9.1996, approval to such consent had not been obtained. Even on today, there is no approval. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner in O.P.No.31697/02, the appellant in W.A.No.1623/03 and in W.A.No.2051/03 as headmaster was not in order. In such circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P11 at his instance was rightly turned down by the learned single Judge. Necessarily, the impugned judgment has to be sustained. 7. The learned single Judge also had quashed Ext.P13 order produced in O.P.No.5686/01 whereby the period of suspension of the petitioner therein had been regularized as eligible leave. When there was no disciplinary action finding her guilty and when there was no permission granted by the Educational Officer to keep the incumbent under suspension beyond 15 days, necessarily, the District Educational Officer, Punalur was not justified in treating the suspension period as eligible leave. Rule 67(8) Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. provides that if the Educational Officer, ‘is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension, he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension…..”. Therefore, interference with Ext.P13 as per the impugned judgment is also to be sustained. 8. We need not consider the contention of the Manager, the appellant in W.A.No.1623/03, that there was no formal challenge against Ext.P13 because, none of the rights of appellant is adversely affected by it. He was on any count, going by Rule 67(8) liable to reinstate the teacher. He did not do so. The salary paid to the teacher on account of his refusal to reinstate the teacher is to be recouped from him as per law. 9. Anyhow, as the petitioner in O.P.No.5686/01 is getting the benefit with retrospective effect, we find that the award of costs shall be set aside. We do so. The appeal are accordingly dismissed, subject to the order as to costs as mentioned above.