JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. This writ appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 28.11.2014 in W.P(C) No.9099 of 2014. The appellants herein are respondents 1 to 4 in that writ petition filed by the respondent herein, the writ petitioner, seeking a direction to quash Exhibit P5 order dated 13.1.2014 of the second appellant and a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to promote him as Master in the Sainik School, Kazhakkuttom from 1.2.2009, as directed in Exhibit P2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 4.7.2013 in W.A. No.844 of 2013. He has also sought for a declaration that he is eligible and entitled for promotion as Master in the Sainik School, Kazhakkuttom, with effect from 1.2.2009. 2. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition were opposed by the appellants by filing counter affidavit and additional counter affidavits. The respondents herein filed reply affidavit and additional reply affidavit. 3. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2014, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to promote the respondent as Master in the Sainik School, Kazhakkuttom, with notional seniority with effect from 1.2.2009. The appellants are also directed to take necessary steps in this regard within two months from the date of the said judgment. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal. 5. We heard the arguments of the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents and also the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 6. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the respondent is not having the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Master and that there is no post of Master in the subject concerned, in which he could be promoted. It was in such circumstances, that the claim made by the respondent for promotion as Master in the subject concerned was turned out by the appellants in Exhibit P5 order. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the contentions now raised by the appellants are squarely covered against them in Exhibit P2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 844 of 2013. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the contentions now raised by the appellants are squarely covered against them in Exhibit P2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 844 of 2013. The learned counsel would also point out that, raising the very same contentions, the appellants filed S.L.P(C) No.5980 of 2014 before the Apex Court and it was later withdrawn as evident from Exhibit P6 order. Therefore, the learned single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, rightly allowed the writ petition. 8. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the respondent is an Assistant Master in Social Science in Sainik School, Kazhakkuttom. He seeks promotion as Master in Social Science. Initially, he approached this Court with the very same prayer in W.P (C) No.9229 of 2009. By Exhibit P1 judgment, the said writ petition was allowed to the extent of directing the appellants to promote the respondent as 'Master' with notional seniority assigned from 1.2.2009. However, the respondent will not be entitled for higher pay and allowance for the period till actual promotion is effected. The second appellant was also directed to consider Exhibits P2 and P3 and to take an appropriate decision on the request for providing common seniority between the cadre of Assistant Master and Master among the teachers in the Sainik Schools, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the representatives of the teachers. 9. Exhibit P1 judgment of the learned single Judge was under challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 844 of 2013. After considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench disposed of the said appeal by Exhibit P2 judgment. Paragraphs (8), (9) and (10) of the said judgment reads thus: "8. The pass criteria of Senior School Certificate Examination includes, a grade higher than 'E' in all subjects of internal assessment unless a particular student is exempted. In other words, a candidate getting 'E' Grade and below will not get pass certificate. Therefore, General Studies which has only internal assessment where grading is possible also forms part of academic results of classes taught by eligible Masters. In other words, a candidate getting 'E' Grade and below will not get pass certificate. Therefore, General Studies which has only internal assessment where grading is possible also forms part of academic results of classes taught by eligible Masters. In that view of the matter, placing reliance on Rules 5.03 and 5.06 read with clause 2.5(i) of the Scheme of Examination and Pass Criteria, it is very clear that the General Studies taught by the writ petitioner also forms part of the academic results which has to be taken into consideration while promoting them as Masters. 9. So far as the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, directing the respondents to promote the writ petitioner as Master with notional seniority, we are of the opinion, it has to be modified, as there is a procedure how an Assistant Master has to be promoted as Master. Apart from his required qualification and eligibility to be promoted as Master, many other requirements like ten years' annual confidential reports and academic results have to be taken into consideration by the screening committee as indicated in the Rules and Regulations. Therefore, there can only be a direction to the respondents to consider the writ petitioner for the promotion as Master. 10. So far as another direction to consider Exhibits P2 and P3, we are of the opinion, the common seniority has to be between the cadre of Assistant Master and Master among the teachers in the Sainik Schools in Kerala, as each Sainik School is treated as separate establishment and there is no inter transfers. The entire procedure has to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is needless to say that a Screening Committee also has to be constituted for the above exercise. In case the writ petitioner/first respondent is found eligible to be promoted as Master, the notional seniority as directed by the learned Single Judge with effect from 1.2.2009 has to be extended to him." 10. A reading of Exhibit P2 judgment would make it explicitly clear that, after considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench of this Court arrived at a specific finding that, the respondent has requisite qualification and eligibility under the Rules and Regulations of the Sainik School Society for being promoted as Master. A reading of Exhibit P2 judgment would make it explicitly clear that, after considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench of this Court arrived at a specific finding that, the respondent has requisite qualification and eligibility under the Rules and Regulations of the Sainik School Society for being promoted as Master. However, the Division Bench took the view that apart from the required qualification and eligibility to be promoted as Master, many other requirements like ten years' Annual Confidential Reports and academic results have to be taken into consideration by the Screening Committee as indicated in the Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, the Division Bench held that there can only be a direction to the appellants herein to consider the respondent herein for promotion as master. 11. Exhibit P2 judgment of this Court was under challenge in S.L.P(C) No.5980 of 2014 before the Apex Court. As evident from Exhibit P6 order passed by the Apex Court dated 17.2.2014, when the said Special Leave Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel, who represented the appellants herein, sought leave to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by Exhibit P6 order. 12. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in this writ appeal, a copy of the memorandum of Special Leave Petition is produced as Annexure R1(a), a perusal of which would make explicitly clear that the appellants raised the very same contentions, which are now raised in this Writ Appeal, before the Apex Court in that Special Leave Petition, which petition was later withdrawn, as evident from Exhibit P6 order. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the appellants in contending that the respondent is not having the requisite qualification and eligibility to be promoted as Master in the Sainik School, Kazhakkuttom. 13. A reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge would show that it was after taking into account the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in Exhibit P2 judgment, which has attained finality, that the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for promotion as Master in the subject concerned, which claim was wrongly rejected in Exhibit P5 order. The learned single Judge held that, the issue as to the eligibility of the respondent to be considered for promotion to the post of Master was concluded in Exhibits P1 and P2 judgments and as such, the said issue cannot be raised by the appellants herein. Similarly, the appellants cannot now contend that, on account of the retirement of M.K. Poonacha, vacancy of Master would not arise. Had there not been a vacancy of Master as on 1.2.2009 on account of the retirement of M.K. Poonacha, this Court in Exhibits P1 and P2 judgments would not have undertaken the exercise of considering the rival contentions of the parties as to the eligibility of the respondent herein to be considered for promotion. Further, had it been the case, the Division Bench would not have directed in Exhibit P2 judgment that, in case the respondent herein is found eligible to be promoted as Master, the notional seniority with effect from 1.2.2009 has to be extended to him. 14. As evident from Exhibit P5 order, pursuant to the direction in Exhibit P2 judgment, the Scrutiny Committee considered the Annual Confidential Reports of the respondent for ten years and the academic results. The only adverse finding made against the respondent in Exhibit P5 order is that, the respondent who has not successfully completed M.A. History, has falsely claimed in his bio-data/statement that he has completed M.A. History. The learned single Judge, after referring to the said bio-data/statement, which are marked as Exhibits R4(c) and R4(d) and also Exhibit R4(e) communication received from the Controller of Examinations, Madras University, addressed to the Inspecting Officer of the Sainik School Society, found that in Exhibit R4(d) bio-data the respondent made a distinction between the degrees acquired by him and the other qualifications. Even though he has stated that he has passed B.A. Economics and M.A. Economics from Kerala University and B.A. Social Studies from Ukkal University, he has only indicated that he has completed M.A. History Course. In Exhibit R4(c) bio-data also, he does not say that he has passed M.A. History Course. He has only said that he has completed M.A. History Course. Exhibit R4 (e) communication issued by the Controller of Examinations, Madras University indicates that the respondent herein though applied for M.A. History Examination held in 1991, he was absent for the examination. In Exhibit R4(c) bio-data also, he does not say that he has passed M.A. History Course. He has only said that he has completed M.A. History Course. Exhibit R4 (e) communication issued by the Controller of Examinations, Madras University indicates that the respondent herein though applied for M.A. History Examination held in 1991, he was absent for the examination. Therefore, the learned single Judge concluded that, merely for the reason that the respondent herein has stated in the bio-data submitted to a few organisations that he has completed M.A. History Course, it cannot be said that the said conduct is such that he ought not to be considered for promotion as Master. Accordingly, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein to promote the respondent herein as Master in Sainik School, Kazhakoottam with notional service with effect from 1.2.2009. 15. We find absolutely no ground to interfere with the reasoning of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment. In the result, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The learned Central Government Counsel would submit that some time may be granted to the appellants for complying with the direction contained in the judgment of the learned single Judge. Considering the said submission, we grant one month's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the appellants to comply with the direction contained in the impugned judgment.