JUDGMENT : Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short) stipulates the method of appointment to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School, in Rule 4 thereof. As per this Rule, the post of Principal in Higher Secondary Schools is to be filled either by promotion from among qualified Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST) or by transfer from among qualified Headmasters of High Schools, under the respective educational agency. The Rule, thereafter, postulates that the post will be filled up from among the afore two categories in the ratio of 2:1 and that if qualified candidates are not available for appointment to a vacancy by any of such methods, such vacancy shall be filled up by other method. 2. The afore provision has been attracted in this case because, the petitioner is stated to be a qualified Headmistress of the 'Chalavara Higher Secondary School', Palakkad, who stakes claim to be appointed as the Principal of the said School, into a vacancy that arose on 01.06.2020. However, the competent educational Authorities turned down her request saying that, as per the ratio mentioned in Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, her chance will come only when the 6th turn for appointment to the said post arises and that what has arisen on 01.06.2020 is the 4th turn. 3. The petitioner challenged this stand of the educational Authority before the Government of Kerala, by filing a statutory revision, which has culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 01.03.2021, wherein, the afore has been reiterated. She, therefore, challenges Ext.P1 order and prays that 4th respondent-Manager be directed to appoint her to the vacancy of Principal, which is now being officiated by the 5th respondent as the Principal-in-Charge. 4. I have heard Sri.P.Jayaram – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.V.A.Muhammed – learned counsel for the Manager of the school and Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 5. The facts which are undisputed would show that when the 1st turn in the post of Principal arose in the school, it was filled up by a qualified Higher Secondary School Teacher, as was also the 2nd turn. The 3rd turn in the post, however, arose at a time when the petitioner -who was then working as a Headmistress -was not qualified. The 3rd turn in the post, however, arose at a time when the petitioner -who was then working as a Headmistress -was not qualified. This vacancy was, therefore, also filled up by appointing a qualified Higher Secondary School Teacher, who subsequently retired on 31.05.2020, thus causing a vacancy to arise with effect from 01.06.2020. It is this turn which is now being claimed by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.P.Jayaram, argued that, going by Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, the turn/vacancy in the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School can be filled up only in the ratio of 2:1 from among HSSTs and Headmasters/Headmistresses and therefore, that when his client missed a turn to be appointed as a Principal -on account of being not qualified when the 3rd turn arose in the year 2015 -she should be accommodated to the 4th turn, which arose on 01.06.2020. He predicated that this is the only manner in which the mandate of the afore legal provisions can be harmonised because, according to him, otherwise, his client would never obtain an opportunity to be the Principal, unless the 6th turn arises, which is not possible because she is to retire on 31.05.2021. 7. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader -Shri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER does not concede to any ambiguity or doubt and that every time a vacancy arises in the post of Principal, it will have to be filled up in the ratio of 2:1 between qualified HSSTs and Headmaster/ Headmistress of the High School. He submitted that, as is admitted in this case, when the first and second turns arose in the post of Principal in the School in question, qualified HSSTs were appointed; but that when the third turn arose, the petitioner -who would have been normally appointed to the same -could not be, on account of the fact that she was admittedly not qualified. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader asserted that, therefore, going by the latter limb of Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, a qualified HSST was appointed to the third turn also; and consequently that, when the fourth turn arose on 01.06.2020, the Manager is obligated to offer it to a qualified HSST as per the statutory ratio. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader asserted that, therefore, going by the latter limb of Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, a qualified HSST was appointed to the third turn also; and consequently that, when the fourth turn arose on 01.06.2020, the Manager is obligated to offer it to a qualified HSST as per the statutory ratio. He, submitted that this is exactly what has been stated by the Government in Ext.P1 order and he, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 9. Shri.V.A.Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the Manager of the School, endorsed and adopted the submissions of Shri.P.M.Manoj as afore; but added to it by saying that, since the 5th respondent is an HSST, fully qualified to be appointed as the Principal of the School, nothing can interdict the same and therefore, prayed that Ext.P1 order be left undisturbed. 10. When I examine the afore rival contentions, it is indubitable that the only question posed before this Court for resolution is whether the 4th turn in the post of Principal in the School should revert to the petitioner or whether it should go to a qualified HSST. 11. As I have already said above, Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER make it obligatory to fill up the post of Principal from among qualified HSSTs and Headmaster/Headmistress of the High School in the ratio of 2:1. The Rule further unambiguously provides that when qualified candidates are not available in one stream, then such vacancy shall be filled up by the other method. 12. In an analogous situation, with respect to the post of HSSTs -where a similar ratio is provided -a learned Judge of this Court, in Sreeltha v. State of Kerala [ 2015 (4) KLT 736 ], had declared it unequivocally that the turns of the vacancies arising therein will have to be filled up one after the other, following the prescribed ratio. 13. The position is no different in this case because, the Manager had followed the ratio as prescribed under Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER and had appointed qualified HSSTs to the first two turns, arising in the post of Principal. Had the petitioner been qualified, certainly, the third turn would have gone to her and this is conceded to by the Manager and by the Government. 14. Had the petitioner been qualified, certainly, the third turn would have gone to her and this is conceded to by the Manager and by the Government. 14. However, unfortunately for the petitioner, she was not qualified when the third turn arose in the year 2015 and resultantly, under the mandate of the said Rule, another qualified HSST was appointed. This teacher retired only on 31.05.2020, thus giving rise to the fourth turn, which, as per the afore statutory ratio can only go to an HSST, because, otherwise, it will stand defeated and subsequent appointments would become frustrated from among the two categories of persons mentioned therein. 15. To paraphrase, if the petitioner's case is accepted, then the 4th turn, in the post of Principal, will have to go to her; which will, however, then cause the subsequent turns to be disturbed, since her appointment would stand contrary to the ratio of 2:1. This is why the turns to the post of Principal will have to be taken in blocks of three, the first two to be filled up by qualified HSSTs; while the third by a qualified Headmaster/ Headmistress. Naturally, therefore, when the next block of three arises, the first two among them will also have to be filled up by qualified HSSTs, while only the third can be offered to a qualified Headmaster/Headmistress. 16. Viewed from that angle, I cannot find any error in Ext.P1 order, since it is indubitable that the Government has correctly held that the first and the second turns in the post of Principal ought to be filled up by qualified HSSTs; while the third, sixth, ninth turns will have to be filled up by qualified Headmaster/Headmistress. Further, as per the statutory Scheme, it is only in the absence of a qualified candidate, when the ear-marked turn arises, can a person from the other category be appointed, which is the case presented in this writ petition, because the third turn -which should have normally gone to the petitioner -had to be filled up through an HSST, since she was not, concededly, qualified in the year 2015, when the said turn arose. In the afore circumstances, I cannot find favour with the submissions of the petitioner against Ext.P1 and I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition.