JUDGMENT : Surendra Mohan, J. The 6th respondent in W.P.(C) No.3736 of 2017 has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2018 of the learned Single Judge. 2. The first respondent was appointed as an Urdu Teacher in the AMUP School, Vadakkangara, The appointment was made by the 6th respondent herein. However, no approval for the appointment was granted by the AEO stating that no bye-laws had been framed for the management and approved by the authorities. It was also noted that there was a management dispute in existence. The order was challenged before the DEO and in revision, unsuccessfully. It was thereafter that, the Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent. 2. The appellant herein got himself impleaded in the Writ Petition. It was contended by the appellant that, the 6th respondent was a usurper and that, as per exhibit R6(a) registered partition deed of the family, the appellant's father's brother ought to have been made the Manager. The appellant further contended that, the vacancy to which the first respondent was appointed ought to have been filled up by appointing a qualified member of the family, in compliance with the terms of the partition deed. 3. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and held that, if the 6th respondent was the approved Manager of the school, he had a right to appoint a teacher to the school. Therefore, the AEO has been directed to decide whether the 6th respondent was the approved Manager or not and to grant approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent if he was the approved Manager. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order. 4. According to Advocate P.Samsudin who appears for the appellant, the school originally belonged to the ancestor of the family. The said person passed away in 1986. Thereafter, as per a registered partition deed, document No.525 of 1991 (exhibit R6 (a), there was a partition in the family. It is a specific stipulation in the partition deed that, when vacancies of the school are to be filled up, preference shall be given to the qualified members of the family. It is therefore contended that, appointment of the first respondent was in violation of the terms of the partition deed. It is a specific stipulation in the partition deed that, when vacancies of the school are to be filled up, preference shall be given to the qualified members of the family. It is therefore contended that, appointment of the first respondent was in violation of the terms of the partition deed. According to the learned counsel, the partition deed exhibit R6(a) has been approved under rule 2 of Chapter III, Kerala Educational Rules, 1959 (KER for short), by the Director of Public Instructions, Kerala on 11.06.2009 as per exhibit R6(c) order. It is therefore contended that, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the AEO to grant approval to the appointment of the first respondent. Advocate Shameena Salahudheen appears for the first respondent. The Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 to 4. Advocate K.M.Firoz appears for the 6th respondent. 5. Heard. Since a specific contention is put forward by the counsel for the appellant that once orders are issued under Rule 2 of Chapter III KER approving the partition deed exhibit R6(a), its provisions would bind all concerned with the management of the school including the educational authorities, we consider it necessary to examine the scope of the said provision. Rule 2 of Chapter III KER reads as under:- 2. Constitution of Corporate Management- In the case of institutions under corporate Educational Agency, the constitution of the Educational Agency to the extent and in so far as it relates to the management of any school must be subject to rules approved by the Director which should prescribe among other things (a) the manner in which the proprietary body shall carry out its functions relating to the management of the institutions and (b) the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or appointed, the conditions and tenure of their office and their duties and powers with respect to the management of the institution. In the case of aided schools, the manner of appointment of managers also shall be specified in the rules. Such rules shall not be against the provisions of the Education Act, the rules issued under it, or any other rules passed by the Department or the Government. Any change made in such rules subsequently shall be subject to approval by the Director before becoming operative. 6. Such rules shall not be against the provisions of the Education Act, the rules issued under it, or any other rules passed by the Department or the Government. Any change made in such rules subsequently shall be subject to approval by the Director before becoming operative. 6. A careful reading of the above provision leaves no doubt in our minds that what is contemplated by the said provision are matters regarding (a) the manner in which the proprietary body shall carry out its function relating to the management of the institutions and (b) the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or appointed, the conditions and tenure of their office and duties and powers with respect to the management of the institution. Even assuming that the partition deed takes the position of the Rules contemplated by Rule 2 above, the fact remains that such rules can only deal with the management of the institution and the aspects regarding change of management. Appointment of teachers cannot be the subject matter of the rules that are contemplated by Rule 2 of Chapter III. Since teachers are paid out of the public exchequer, it is imperative that selection and appointment of teachers are done only in accordance with the relevant Rules and orders. The stipulations contained in Chapter XIV A KER shall govern all such aspects. In view of the above, we find no merit in the contention that a member of the family would have to be appointed in preference to a better qualified person. Considering the interests of the students also, it is only in the fitness of things that the most competent person is appointed after following the proper accepted method of selection. 7. Though it is contended that there is dispute regarding the right of the 6th respondent to be the Manager of the school, there is nothing on record to show whether he has been approved as the Manager or not. It is for the said reason that the learned Single Judge has directed the AEO to consider whether the 6th respondent was the approved Manager or not. If the 6th respondent is the approved Manager, there cannot be any doubt that the appointment made by the said Manager is only to be approved. It is for the said reason that the learned Single Judge has directed the AEO to consider whether the 6th respondent was the approved Manager or not. If the 6th respondent is the approved Manager, there cannot be any doubt that the appointment made by the said Manager is only to be approved. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warranting an interference with the same in appeal. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.