JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. 1. The writ appeals arise out of the common judgment by which the learned Single Judge interfered with an order issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Kannur, rejecting the applications submitted by the Manager of the Kadambur Higher Secondary School ('the School' for brevity) for approving the appointment of a Higher Secondary School Teacher as Principal-in-charge. The rejection of approval was for the reason that as per G.O.(MS) No.122/2002/G.Edn.dated 21.5.2002, the Government had directed the senior most HSST in the school to be placed as Principal-in-charge and Sri.Raghuraj M.K, the HSST appointed by the Manager, not being the senior most was not entitled to be posted as the Principal-in-charge. It was directed that the senior most HSST should be posted as Principal-in-charge. In view of the rejection, the Regional Deputy Director decided to function as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the School till the senior most HSST is posted as Principal-in-charge. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge interfered with the directions of the Regional Deputy Director and permitted the Manager to appoint any qualified HSST to hold the post of Principal-in-charge till the disciplinary proceedings against the senior most HSST in the school, who is under suspension, is over and to appoint the senior most HSST as the Principal on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 2. Writ Appeal No.1175 of 2019 arises out of writ petition No.36344 of 2018, filed by a teacher who claimed to be the senior most HSST in the School. Writ Appeal No.1583 of 2019 arises out of W.P.(C) No.22138 of 2018 filed by the Manager of the School. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.1583 of 2019 is the second respondent in the writ petition, who is working as an HSST in the School and had got himself impleaded as additional second respondent to voice his objection against the action of the Manager. 3. A short conspectus of the essential facts are as follows: The School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School in the year 2000. As per the seniority list maintained by the School, Manikantan C. is the senior most HSST followed by Mumtaz A.P. and Shaju K.P. Sri.Raghuraj M.K is placed at serial No.18 in the seniority list. 3. A short conspectus of the essential facts are as follows: The School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School in the year 2000. As per the seniority list maintained by the School, Manikantan C. is the senior most HSST followed by Mumtaz A.P. and Shaju K.P. Sri.Raghuraj M.K is placed at serial No.18 in the seniority list. The Government had, as per G.O.(MS) No.122/2002/G.Edn.dated 21.5.2002, directed that senior most HSST of the Higher Secondary School to be invested with the charge of Principal as an interim measure till regular appointments are made to the post of Principal. Thereafter, in the year 2016, Manikantan C., the senior most HSST was appointed as Principal-in- charge. Later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Manikantan and he was suspended from service with effect from 26.8.2017. Thereupon, Mumtaz A.P, the second senior most HSST was placed in charge of Principal as a stopgap arrangement to avoid administrative difficulties till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Manikantan C is concluded. But, based on complaints from teachers and parents, disciplinary action was proposed to be initiated against Mumtaz A.P and on being issued with notice, she sought relief from the charge of Principal. Mumtaz A.P was relieved of the charge with effect from 25.5.2018 and on 25.5.2018 itself, the Manager issued proceedings appointing M.K.Raghuraj, HSST as Principal-in-charge of the School. 4. M.K.Raghuraj being serial No.18 in the seniority list of HSSTs, some of the teachers raised a complaint against his appointment before the Regional Deputy Director. Alleging delay in considering the proposal for appointment of M.K.Raghuraj as Principal-in-charge, the Manager approached this Court and by judgment dated 8.6.2018 in W.P.(C) No.18279 of 2018, this Court directed the Regional Deputy Director to consider the request made by the Manager for the approval of the appointment of M.K.Raghuraj as Principal- in-charge and to take an appropriate decision with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties. It was also directed that pending consideration of approval of the appointment of M.K.Reghuraj as Principal-in-charge, the Regional Deputy Director shall issue necessary orders regarding appointment of a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. In terms of the judgment, the Regional Deputy Director heard the parties and rejected the proposal for appointment, holding that as per the existing rules, the senior most HSST should be appointed as Principal-in-charge. In terms of the judgment, the Regional Deputy Director heard the parties and rejected the proposal for appointment, holding that as per the existing rules, the senior most HSST should be appointed as Principal-in-charge. Under the order, the Regional Deputy Director took charge as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the School till the Principal-in-charge is appointed in accordance with seniority. 5. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has referred to G.O.(MS) No.122/2002/G.Edn.dated 21.5.2002, G.O.(MS) No.127/2002/G.Edn dated 27.5.2002 and G.O.(MS) No.161/2004/G.Edn.dated 14.6.2004. By G.O.(MS) No.122/2002/G.Edn the Government had directed that the senior most HSST shall be put in charge of the Principal as an interim measure, in the absence of regular Principal. This Government order was directed to be kept in abeyance until further orders as per G.O.(MS) No.127/2002/G.Edn dated 27.5.2002. G.O.(MS)No.161/2004/G.Edn.dated 14.6.04 provided for giving charge of the Higher Secondary Section of the School to the senior most HSST when there are no HSST having 12 years teaching experience for placement to the post of Principal- in-charge. G.O.(MS) No.122/2002/G.Edn. dated 21.5.2002 having been kept in abeyance as per G.O.(MS) No.127/2002/G.Edn dated 27.5.2002 and G.O.(MS) No.161/2004/G.Edn.dated 14.6.2004 having no application as far as the School is concerned, since there were qualified HSST having 12 years teaching experience, the learned Single Judge considered the question as to whether, in such circumstances, the Manager had the right to appoint a person of his choice from among qualified hands. This question was answered in the affirmative by holding that the Manager is free to appoint any HSST, who is qualified to be appointed as the Principal-in-charge, without considering seniority, till the disciplinary proceedings against Manikantan C. is concluded. It was directed that the Manager shall appoint the senior most HSST as Principal on conclusion of disciplinary action against Manikantan C. 6. We find that in spite of G.O.(MS) No.122/2002/G.Edn.dated 21.5.2002 having been kept in abeyance as per G.O.(MS) No.127/2002/G.Edn dated 27.5.2002, the Manager had appointed the senior most HSST as Principal-in-charge, while effecting the appointments of Manikantan C and Mumtaz A.P. It was only while appointing M.K.Raghuraj that seniority was overlooked. In G.O.(MS) No.127/2002/G.Edn dated 27.5.2002, the Government had taken note of the anomalous practice of placing the Headmasters of the School in charge of Principals of the Higher Secondary School, thereby requiring Higher Secondary School Teachers with higher qualifications to work under Headmasters with lower academic qualification. In G.O.(MS) No.127/2002/G.Edn dated 27.5.2002, the Government had taken note of the anomalous practice of placing the Headmasters of the School in charge of Principals of the Higher Secondary School, thereby requiring Higher Secondary School Teachers with higher qualifications to work under Headmasters with lower academic qualification. It was in such circumstances that the Government order was issued directing the senior HSST of the Higher Secondary School to be invested with the charge of Principal. Therefore, the direction to keep in abeyance G.O.(MS) No.122/2002/G.Edn.dated 21.5.2002 as per G.O.(MS) No.127/2002/G.Edn dated 27.5.2002 is essentially with respect to the practice of appointing Headmasters of Schools as Principal-in-charge of Higher Secondary Schools. 7. Be that as it may, Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER deals with the method of appointment to various categories of teachers and non-teaching staff in aided Higher Secondary Schools. As per the table appended to Rule 4, the method of appointment of Principal is by promotion from among HSST under the respective educational agency or by transfer from qualified Headmasters of aided High Schools under the respective educational agency in the ratio of 2:1. Since the Rule regarding method of appointment mandate that such appointment shall be by way of promotion from among HSST based on seniority, the appointment to the post of Principal-in-charge should also be based on seniority. 8. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Manager contended that the method of appointment prescribed for regular appointment to the post of Principal need not be followed while placing a teacher as Principal-in- charge, we are unable to accept the said contention. The legislature having prescribed the method of appointment to the post of Principal, it has to be followed even while effecting placement in the post of Principal-in-charge. Therefore, irrespective of whether G.O.(MS)No.122/2002/G.Edn. dated 21.5.2002 is operational or not, appointment to the post of Principal shall be based on seniority among HSSTs. Hence, we find the direction in the impugned judgment permitting the Manager to appoint any HSST, without considering seniority, as Principal-in-charge to be unsustainable. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed. The Manager is directed to appoint the senior most HSST as Principal-in-charge of the School within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed. The Manager is directed to appoint the senior most HSST as Principal-in-charge of the School within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the present arrangement of the Regional Deputy Director of Education holding the charge of Drawing and Disbursing Officer shall continue. No order as to costs.