JUDGMENT : The subject matter of this writ petition is the management dispute of Pariyaram Aided Upper Primary School, which is a Pre-KER school originally managed by one Sri.Othenan. The school and its property is a co-ownership property. After the death of Othenan the school was managed by his wife Smt.P.Janaki Amma, who died on 25.6.2008. In the year 1994 there arose some dispute regarding ownership and right over the property in which Pariyaram Aided Upper Primary School situate and the said dispute between the legal heirs of late Othenan on one side and the other co-owners of the property, namely, the brothers and sisters of late Othenan on the other side is now pending before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery in a final decree proceedings in I.A.No.1721 of 1998 in O.S.No.208 of 1994. 2. Smt. P. Janaki Amma, who was the Manager of the school, expired on 25.6.2008. The petitioner who was working as Headmistress of the school retired from service on 31.3.2009. After retirement, the petitioner submitted an application dated 1.4.2009 seeking an order to appoint her as the Manager of the school, as the other two legal heirs of late P.Janaki Amma, namely, the 4th and 5th respondents herein, could not be appointed as the Manager due to the embargo contained in Rule 8(2) of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules (for brevity 'KER'). 3. The request made by the petitioner for appointment as Headmistress of the School was rejected by the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Mattannur dated 4.6.2009 stating that there are more than one claimant to the post of Manager. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer, Thalassery. In the meanwhile a joint petition was filed by one Sri. T.V. Vivekandan and 21 others before the District Educational Officer, requesting to appoint one C.H. Prabhakaran as the Manager of the School, and that, the petitioner shall not be appointed as the Manager of the school till the disposal of O.S.No.208 of 1994 pending before the Sub Court, Thalassery. 4. T.V. Vivekandan and 21 others before the District Educational Officer, requesting to appoint one C.H. Prabhakaran as the Manager of the School, and that, the petitioner shall not be appointed as the Manager of the school till the disposal of O.S.No.208 of 1994 pending before the Sub Court, Thalassery. 4. Since the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of rejection of her request for appointment as Headmistress was pending consideration, she filed W.P.(C)No.22004 of 2009 before this Court, in which writ petition this Court by the order dated 4.8.2009 directed the District Educational Officer, Thalassery to take a decision on the appeal after hearing the petitioner and other affected parties. 5. By Ext.P1 order dated 5.9.2009, the District Educational Officer, Thalassery disposed of the said appeal holding that all the legal heirs of late P.Janaki Amma can jointly appoint a person among them as the Manager of the school and directed the Assistant Educational Officer to dispose of the case accordingly. In view of the said order, this Court by Ext.P2 judgment dated 5.11.2009 disposed of W.P.(C)No.22004 of 2009 directing the Assistant Educational Officer to pass appropriate order after hearing all the parties concerned. 6. In pursuance of the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment, the Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P3 order dated 23.1.2010 appointing the petitioner as the Manager of the school and permitting her to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to that post. The appointment of the petitioner was made purely on temporary basis. As per the conditions stipulated in Ext.P3 order, the petitioner will have to take necessary steps to co-opt the other two heirs of late Janaki Amma (namely, the 4th and 5th respondents) in the educational agency as and when they quit service from the school and if otherwise the management temporarily vested upon the petitioner will automatically stand cancelled. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P3 order of the Assistant Educational Officer and as such, the said order has attained finality. 7. One C.H. Prabhakaran filed appeal against Ext.P3 order before the Director of Public Instruction, contending that, since the suit for partition of the school property is pending consideration before the competent civil court the appointment of the petitioner as the Manager of the school has to be re-considered. The said request was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 30.11.2010 of the Director of Public Instruction. The said request was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 30.11.2010 of the Director of Public Instruction. Ext.P4 order was under challenge in a revision filed before the Government, which also ended in dismissal by Ext.P5 order dated 1.10.2011. By the said order the petitioner was allowed to continue as the Manager of the School in question subject to the final verdict in O.S.No.208 of 1994 pending before the Sub Court, Thalassery. 8. In O.S.No.208 of 1994 the Sub Court passed a preliminary decree on 22.8.1997, allowing partition of the school property by metes and bounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, out of 14 shares, the legal heirs of late Othenan (i.e., the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents herein) are entitled for 8 shares. It is also submitted that final decree proceedings are still going on before the Sub Court. 9. The 4th and 5th respondents filed a revision petition dated 21.12.2011 before the Government against Ext.P5 order of the Director of Public Instruction. Based on the said revision petition, the Government by Ext.P6 order dated 12.4.2012 stayed the operation of Ext.P5 order until further orders. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation before the Government. Ext.P6 order was also under challenge in W.P.(C)No.14703/2012 filed by the petitioner. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 25.6.2012, staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6. Later the said writ petition was disposed of directing the 1st respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6, by considering Ext.P8 revision filed by the 4th and 5th respondents herein and also Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents herein. It was also made clear that 'status-quo' shall continue till such time. 10. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents herein were heard on 30.1.2013. During the course of personal hearing the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 explanation dated 30.1.2013. It was also made clear that 'status-quo' shall continue till such time. 10. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents herein were heard on 30.1.2013. During the course of personal hearing the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 explanation dated 30.1.2013. After considering the rival contentions, the Government passed Ext.P11 order dated 24.4.2013 in which it was clarified that, since Ext.P3 order of the Assistant Educational Officer dated 23.1.2010 is neither cancelled nor superseded by Ext.P4 order dated 30.11.2010 of the Director of Public Instruction or Ext.P5 Government Order dated 1.10.2011, the conditions laid down by the Assistant Educational Officer in Ext.P3 order are still valid. Accordingly, by Ext.P11 order, the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to co-opt the other two legal heirs of late Janaki Amma, namely, the 4th and 5th respondents herein, in the educational agency and approve one among the legal heirs as the Manager of the school as per the provisions of the KER. In Ext.P11 order, Government have also clarified that, the said arrangement is subject to the verdict of the competent civil court in O.S.No.208/1994 which is still pending. Accordingly Ext.P6 Government Order dated 12.4.2012 staying operation of Ext.P5 Government Order dated 1.10.2011 stands vacated. 11. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P11 order, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P12 order dated 16.5.2013 of the Assistant Educational Officer by which the 4th respondent, who is one among the legal heirs of late Janaki Amma was appointed as the temporary Manager from 24.4.2013 subject to the outcome of O.S.No.208 of 1994. The appointment of the 4th respondent was for a period of three years or till judgment is pronounced in O.S.No.208 of 1994, whichever is earlier. Certain other conditions were also imposed in Ext.P12 order, while appointing the 4th respondent as the temporary Manager with effect from 24.4.2013. It is challenging Exts.P11 and P12 that the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition. 12. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are opposed by the respondents by filing separate counter affidavits, producing therewith certain documents in support of their contentions. 13. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Ext.P11 order passed by the Government and Ext.P12 consequential order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. 14. 13. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Ext.P11 order passed by the Government and Ext.P12 consequential order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. 14. As I have already noticed, by Ext.P3 order of the Assistant Educational Officer, the petitioner was appointed as the Manager of the school subject to certain conditions, which read thus:- In the circumstances the following orders are issued:- 1. Smt. T.V. Valsalakumari, retired teacher and D/o. late Janaki is the fittest person to be appointed as the manager of Pariyaram AUP school and hence she is permitted to discharge all the duties and responsibilities of the manager, Pariyaram AUP school purely on a temporary basis. 2. Smt. Valsalakumari will take necessary steps to co-opt the other two heirs of her mother, late Janaki [Sri. T.V. Aravindakshan and Smt. T.V. Vasanthi] in the Educational agency as and when they quit services from the school and if otherwise the management temporarily vested upon Smt.Valsalakumari will automatically stand cancelled. 3. All the 3 heirs, Smt.Valsalakumari, Sri.Aravindakshan and Smt.Vasanthi will jointly take fruitful and active measures for the progress and development of the school. 4. These orders shall have prospective effect only. 15. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P3 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and as such, the said order has attained finality, as far as the petitioner is concerned. Though one C.H. Prabhakaran filed appeal/revision against the said order, the appellate as well as the revisional authority in Ext.P4/P5 orders declined interference with Ext.P3 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. In para.7 of Ext.P9 judgment in W.P. (C)No.14703/2012 this Court found that, while passing Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the Director of Public Instruction or the Government have not passed any order adjudicating the rights and liberties among the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents herein, which in fact stands settled by virtue of Ext.P3 order and it has become final. Para.7 of the said judgment reads thus:- "7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the Government, while passing Ext.P4 & P5, have not passed any order adjudicating the rights and liberties among the petitioner and the respondents 3 & 4, which in fact stands settled by virtue of Ext.P3 order and it has become final. Para.7 of the said judgment reads thus:- "7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the Government, while passing Ext.P4 & P5, have not passed any order adjudicating the rights and liberties among the petitioner and the respondents 3 & 4, which in fact stands settled by virtue of Ext.P3 order and it has become final. This being the position, it is necessary to give effect to Ext.P3 and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Government with regard to the relative rights and merits. In the said circumstance, the first respondent is directed to finalise the proceedings forming the subject matter of Ext.P6; that is, Ext.P8 revision petition preferred by the respondents 3 and 4 and also Ext.P7 representation preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law. The proceedings as above shall be finalised after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of the receipt of copy of this judgment." 16. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P9 judgment, the Government issued Ext.P11 order dated 24.4.2013 clarifying that Ext.P3 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer is neither cancelled nor superseded by the subsequent orders passed by the appellate/revisional authority. The observation to that effect made in para.10 of Ext.P11 order reads thus:- (10) In the above circumstances, it is clarified that the order No.A/922/09 dated 23.01.2010 of the Assistant Educational Officer, Mattannur has not been cancelled or superceded by the order No.G4/28013/D.P.I. dated 30.11.2010 of the Director of Public Instructions and the Government Order read as 1st paper above and that the conditions laid down by the Assistant Educational Officer, Mattannur in his order are still valid. The Assistant Educational Officer, Mattannur is directed to co-opt the other two legal heirs of late Janaki, i.e., Sri. T.V. Aravindakshan and T.V. Vasanthi in the educational agency and approve one among the legal heirs of Smt.Janaki as manager of the school as per the provisions of Kerala Education Rules. It is clarified that the present arrangement is subject to the verdict of the Hon'ble Sub Court, Thalassery in the original suit pending. The Government Order read as 3rd paper above staying the operation of the Government Order read as 1st paper above is vacated." 17. It is clarified that the present arrangement is subject to the verdict of the Hon'ble Sub Court, Thalassery in the original suit pending. The Government Order read as 3rd paper above staying the operation of the Government Order read as 1st paper above is vacated." 17. Based on Ext.P11 order, the Assistant Educational Officer has issued Ext.P12 order by which the 4th respondent has been appointed as the temporary Manager of the school for a period of three years with effect from 24.4.2013, subject to the outcome of O.S.No.208 of 1994 pending before the competent civil court. 18. The reasoning of the Government in Ext.P11 order, which is strictly in tune with the finding of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference of this Court, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the very same reason, the challenge made against Ext.P12 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer can only be repelled. 19. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the strength of Ext.P3 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, the petitioner took charge as the Manager of the school with effect from 15.2.2010. Thereafter, on the strength of the interim order of stay granted by this Court dated 5.6.2013, by which all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P11 and P12 are stayed initially till 19.6.2013, which interim order was later extended until further orders, she is continuing as the Manager of the school. Since the petitioner is continuing as the Manager of the school on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court, it is only just and proper that the 4th respondent shall be appointed as the Manager of the school, for a period of three years, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the Assistant Educational Officer shall grant necessary approval of such appointment for a period of three years or till passing of the final decree in O.S.No.208 of 1994, whichever is earlier.