JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2010 in Writ Petition No.15821/2004 (SPR0), whereby the learned Single Judge declined to set aside the order of grant of promotion of respondent No.5 for the post of Head Master of Sri Siddeshwara High School, Mysore. 2. The brief facts which gave rise to this appeal are as follows: Ashoka Vidya Samsthe, Mysore, a Private Educational Trust is running a High School at Mysore known as Sri Siddeshwara High School. The appellant B. Srikanta Murthy, B.Sc. B.Ed. and the respondent No.5T.N. Srikanta Murthy, M.A. B.Ed. were appointed as Assistant Teachers under the same order of appointment. Both of them joined the school as Assistant Teachers on 02.06.1986 forenoon. Both of them were granted Government salary on 23.07.1994. The date of birth of the appellant is 28.11.1955 whereas that of the respondent No.5 is 11.05.1960. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the Government on 30.10.1990 and that of the respondent No.5 on 17.09.1990. When such being the case, the Management of the school passed a resolution for promotion of the respondent No.5 to the post of Head Master of the High School and forwarded the resolution for approval of respondent No.1 the Competent Authority i.e., Director of Public Instructions (High School), K.R. Circle, Bangalore, who inturn accorded approval for promotion by order dated 25.09.2001. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2001 passed by the respondent No.1, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.15821/2004 before the learned Single Judge contending that both the appellant and respondent No.5 were appointed as Assistant Teachers under the same order and that they joined as Assistant Teachers on 02.06.1986 forenoon. The appellant being the senior to the respondent No.5 who fulfils all the eligibility criteria for the promotion as Head Master of the School, the respondent No.4the management of the school and the respondent No.1the Director of Public Instructions ought to have promoted the appellant as the Head Master of the school. But the respondent No.5 who is junior to him by age has been promoted, though he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria. But the respondent No.5 who is junior to him by age has been promoted, though he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria. The writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who inturn upon hearing the leaned counsel appearing for the parties by his order dated 15.12.2010 declined to interfere with the order of promotion of respondent No.5 mainly on the ground that the appointment of the respondent No.5 for the post of Assistant Teacher had been approved by the Government on 17.09.1990 whereas the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Teacher had been approved by the Government on 30.10.1990. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Perused the records and examined the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that since both the appellant and the respondent No.5 joined as Assistant Teachers on the same day and since the appellant being older in age, he ought to have been promoted to the post of Head Master of the school in view of Rule 3 (IV) of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) (Amendment) Rules, 2000. He further submitted that the approval of appointment by the Government is of no consequences in the matter of promotion of Assistant Teacher to the post of Head Master. He further submitted that the promotion to the post of Head Master shall be made on the basis of seniority of the teacher and the seniority is to be determined by counting the total number of years of continuous service from the date of entry. Thus, the appellant being senior to the respondent No.5, he ought to have been promoted to the post of Head Master and therefore the order passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 4 promoting the respondent No.5 to the post of Head Master of the school, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge is liable to the set aside by allowing this appeal. 6. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 made submissions in support of the order of promotion of respondent No.5 to the post of Head Master of school. It is contended that the appointment of respondent No.5 was approved by the Government earlier to the approval of the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Teacher and as such, the respondent No.5 has been rightly promoted by the Management in view of Rule 3 (IV) of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) (Amendment) Rules, 2000. Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the entire material placed on record and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, what emerges is that both the appellant and respondent No.5 were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Sri. Siddeshwara High School, Mysore under the same order of appointment. That both of them joined as Assistant Teachers on 02.06.1986 forenoon. It is also not in dispute that their salary has been paid by the Government with effect from 23.07.1994. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was born on 28.11.1955 and respondent No.5 was born on 11.06.1960. But in the seniority list maintained by the school, the name of the appellant B. Srikanta Murthy is shown at Sl.No.3 that of one Sri. Somashekar is at Sl.No.2 and that of respondent No.5 T.N. Srikanta Murthy at Sl.No.1. Both the appellant and the respondent No.5 had put in equal number of years of continuous service from the date of entry. Both of them are trained teachers having completed B. Ed. at the time of the entry into the cadre. Both of them had put in not less than five years of approved service at the time of the promotion of the respondent No.5 to the post of Head Master. Under such circumstances, the seniority of the appellant should have been fixed on the basis of his date of birth i.e, above the respondent No.5, he being older than respondent No.5. The date of approval of the appointment by the Government will be of no consequence in the matter of promotion of Assistant Teacher to the post of Head Master. Under such circumstances, the seniority of the appellant should have been fixed on the basis of his date of birth i.e, above the respondent No.5, he being older than respondent No.5. The date of approval of the appointment by the Government will be of no consequence in the matter of promotion of Assistant Teacher to the post of Head Master. If the date of approval of appointment by the Government is accepted as a yardstick for fixing seniority, the possibility of mischief being played by the Department while approving the appointment cannot be ruled out. Since the school is being run by the private Management, it is the date of appointment by the Management and not the date of approval of the appointment by the Government which is material in fixing the seniority. If that is the case, since both appellant and respondent No.5 joined as Assistant Teachers on the same day, in view of the age of the appellant is more than respondent No.5, the appellant should have been shown at Sl.No.1 in the seniority list. But the Management resolved to promote respondent No.5 who is next senior to appellant as Head Master by a resolution dated 26.07.2001, which has been approved by the department on 25.09.2001. Thus, the appellant has been working as Head Master of the school eversince 25.09.2001 almost for more than 13 years. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the post of Head Master is selection post where seniority and merits are the two criteria. Seniority is not the only criteria. The suitability is equally important. ‘A’ may be a very good and meritorious teacher so far as his teaching is concerned. But, when it comes to administration of the school, he may be poor. The candidate who is to be promoted as Head Master should necessarily possess administrative skill, knowledge, controlling capacity apart from teaching. He is not only answerable to students but also to the Management. Therefore, he must also have timely decision making ability. He is expected to take the entire responsibility being head of the institution and redress the grievances of the students, parents, guardians and the staff members both teaching and nonteaching. He is expected to preserve the glory of the institution. Therefore, the selection of a teacher to be promoted to the post of Head Master is the prerogative of the Management. He is expected to preserve the glory of the institution. Therefore, the selection of a teacher to be promoted to the post of Head Master is the prerogative of the Management. Taking into consideration all these factors, the Management in their meeting held on 26.07.2901 unanimously resolved to promote respondent No.5 as Head Master of the school. 8. It is in this background and taking into consideration the interest of the institution and the students as paramount, the Management unanimously resolved to select and appoint respondent No.5 as the Head Master of the school. We do not find any irregularity or error in the order passed by the Management and the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, we pass the following order. Appeal is dismissed.