JUDGMENT : These two writ petitions are connected therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C)No.7070/2022. Exhibits in W.P.(C)No.7070/2022 is referred throughout this judgment unless specifically mentioned otherwise. This is a dispute between two rival claimants for the post of Principal in the Kandamangalam Higher Secondary School (for short, “School”), which is an aided School in terms of the Kerala Education Act and Rules. The petitioner in W.P. (C)No.7070/2022, Smt. Rajeswari Devi.S, was appointed as the Principal of the School from 29.05.2019 onwards against a retirement vacancy in the School by the 4th respondent, The Manager. The grievance of the petitioner is that her appointment as Principal from 29.05.2019 is not approved due to a seniority dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent herein. The 5th respondent, Smt.Sangeetha R. Nair, herein is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9671/2022. It is submitted that, before her regular service started, the petitioner, Smt. Rajeswari Devi.S, entered service as High School Assistant (Maths) (for short, “HSA”) from 28.06.1999 to 13.10.1999 in the High School section of the school in a short vacancy and this appointment was approved on regular scale of pay basis as evident by Ext.P1 order of the District Educational Officer, Cherthala. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced her continuous service as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Maths) (for short, “HSST”) from 03.10.2000 in the School and her appointment was approved by the 2nd respondent, the Director of General Education, as evident by Ext.P2 order. It is the further case of the petitioner that, she was appointed by the 4th respondent as the Principal-in-charge from 01.04.2019 against the vacancy that arose due to the retirement of Smt.T.Usha, on 31.03.2019 and Ext.P3 is the approval order. It is the case of the petitioner that the seniority list of Higher Secondary School Teachers of the School as on 01.07.2018 was approved provisionally by the 3rd respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Alappuzha, as per the order dated 06.05.2019. Ext.P4 is the approval of the seniority list. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 list was not circulated as provided in Rule 36 of Chapter XIV(A) of Kerala Education Rules(For short ‘KER’) and she has not signed the seniority list in acknowledgement of having seen the list. Ext.P4 is the approval of the seniority list. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 list was not circulated as provided in Rule 36 of Chapter XIV(A) of Kerala Education Rules(For short ‘KER’) and she has not signed the seniority list in acknowledgement of having seen the list. Subsequent to Ext.P4, the petitioner made a representation before the Manager and submitted the eligibility of her seniority over the 5th respondent as she was appointed first, that is, earlier than the 5th respondent and hence as per Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER, she is senior to the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the Manager revised the seniority list as on 01.01.2019 assigning seniority to the petitioner over the 5th respondent and the same was submitted before the 3rd respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education. Ext.P5 is the letter of the Manager with the provisional seniority list as on 01.01.2019. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent vide order dated 06.05.2019 cancelled Ext.P3 order on the ground that, as per Ext.P4 seniority list, the 5th respondent is senior to the petitioner and hence she is eligible to be promoted as the Principal. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as the Principal from 29.05.2019 onwards against a retirement vacancy and the Manager had submitted the appointment proposals to the 3rd respondent for approving the appointment of the petitioner as Principal from 29.05.2019. Exts.P7 and P7(a) are the letter together with the appointment order of the 4th respondent Manager appointing the petitioner as the Principal. Aggrieved by Ext.P7(a) appointment order of the petitioner as Principal from 29.05.2019, the 5th respondent moved before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.16026/2019 to promote her as Principal with effect from 01.04.2019 and further to restrain the 3rd respondent from approving the seniority list as on 01.01.2019 as per Ext.P5. As per Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed the Director to take up the representation of the 5th respondent for promoting her as Principal and dispose of the same after affording a hearing to the affected parties. Accordingly, Ext.P9 order was passed by the 2nd respondent declaring that the 5th respondent is senior to the petitioner as both of them commenced continuous service on the same date and the 5th respondent is elder than the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P9 order was passed by the 2nd respondent declaring that the 5th respondent is senior to the petitioner as both of them commenced continuous service on the same date and the 5th respondent is elder than the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P9 is unsustainable. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P10 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Girija Kumar S. and Another v. Rajitha K.G. and Others [ 2019 KHC 711 ]. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P11 Government Order which says that the seniority for being promoted as Principal will be determined with reference to the date from which the candidates are continuously working as HSST. It is also stated that, when there are more than one HSST with the same date of appointment in the HSST cadre, seniority will be fixed reckoning the seniority as HSA. Relying on the above Government Order, the petitioner contented that the petitioner is senior and her first appointment as HSA in the same School is to be reckoned. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P12 judgment of this Court which ratify Ext.P11 Government Order. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, the 4th respondent -Manager and the petitioner moved a revision petition before the 1st respondent – The Government, State of Kerala. Ext.P13 is the revision petition filed by the Manager and the petitioner. This Court as per the judgment in W.P.(C)No.11616/2021 directed the Government to consider the revision petition within a time frame. Thereafter the Government considered the matter and dismissed the revision petition as per Ext.P14 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P14, the petitioner filed W.P. (C)No.7070/2022 with following prayers: “(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-9 and P14 and set aside the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (ii) declare that Exhibit P-7 appointment of the Petitioner as Principal from 29.05.2019 is legally valid. (iii) issue an interim direction commanding the 3rd Respondent RDD HSE to grant approval to Exhibit P-7 appointment of the Petitioner as Principal from 29.05.2019 onwards. (iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC] 3. W.P.(C)No.9671/2022 is filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.7070/2022 to implement Ext.P3, P9 and P14 in W.P.(C)No.7070/2022 which are marked as Exts.P2, P3 and P4 respectively in W.P.(C)No.9671/2022. (iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC] 3. W.P.(C)No.9671/2022 is filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.7070/2022 to implement Ext.P3, P9 and P14 in W.P.(C)No.7070/2022 which are marked as Exts.P2, P3 and P4 respectively in W.P.(C)No.9671/2022. The prayers in W.P. (C)No.9671/2022 is extracted hereunder: “i. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to implement the Ext:P2, P3 and P4 orders, appointing the petitioner as the Principal w.e.f 01.04.2009 and granting all consequential benefits. ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Principal in case the 5th respondent fails to implement the departmental direction. iii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents' No. 1 and 2 to disqualify the 5th respondent from the managership for the deliberate disobedience of the departmental direction. And Pass such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC] 4. When W.P.(C)No.7070/2022 came up for consideration on 03.03.2022, this Court passed the following order: “Admit. GP takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Adv.Dr.George Abraham takes notice for the 4th respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that petitioner is continuing as Principal of the Higher Secondary School, Kandamangalam. In view of the above, there will be a stay of operation of Ext.P14, pending disposal of this writ petition.” The above interim order is in force even now and accordingly the petitioner is continuing as the Principal. 5. Heard Adv. M.Sajjad, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7070/2022, Adv.T.T.Muhamood, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.9671/2022, Adv.Dr.George Abraham, the counsel appearing for the Manager of the School and Adv.Surya Binoy, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 6. The first point to be decided in this case is who among the petitioners in these writ petitions are eligible for promotion to the post of Principal in the School. While deciding the same, this Court also have to consider whether Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER can be adopted for deciding the seniority of the teachers in the Higher Secondary wing. 7. While deciding the same, this Court also have to consider whether Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER can be adopted for deciding the seniority of the teachers in the Higher Secondary wing. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners in these two writ petitions were appointed as H.S.S.T on the same date, that is on 03.10.2000. It is also an admitted case that the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 worked as HSA in the School from 28.06.1999 to 13.10.1999 before her continues approved service as HSST from 03.10.2000 in the School. It is also an admitted fact that as per Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent approved the seniority list of the teachers and lab assistants of the school on 06.05.2019. It is also an admitted fact that as per Ext.P4 seniority list, the petitioner in WP(C) No.9671 of 2022 is senior to the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022. According to the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022, Ext.P4 is only a provisional seniority list. It is her specific case that she has not signed the seniority list in acknowledgement of having seen the list. The counsel for the petitioner took me through Ext.P4 to show that there is no signature of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 in Ext.P4. It is true. But as long as Ext.P4 order approving the seniority list is in force, this Court has to accept Ext.P4 as the seniority list. It is true that as per Ext.P5, the 4th respondent Manager requested the rd respondent to revise the seniority list and approve the modified seniority list. From a perusal of Ext.P9 order of the rd respondent, it is clear that Ext.P5 is not approved and Ext.P4 is the approved seniority list. Simply because there is no signature of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 in Ext.P4, the approved Ext.P4 seniority list cannot be rejected as long as that approval is in force. In Ext.P9, it is clearly stated that, Ext.P5 is not approved and Ext.P4 is the approved seniority list. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 to the effect that Ext.P4 is only a provisional seniority list and Ext.P5 is the revised seniority list, which is to be looked into, cannot be accepted. Therefore, from Ext.P4, the petitioner in WP(C) No.9671 of 2022 is senior to the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022. 8. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 to the effect that Ext.P4 is only a provisional seniority list and Ext.P5 is the revised seniority list, which is to be looked into, cannot be accepted. Therefore, from Ext.P4, the petitioner in WP(C) No.9671 of 2022 is senior to the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022. 8. The contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 is that she is actually senior to the petitioner in WP(C) No.9671 of 2022. That question also can be considered. To substantiate her case, the petitioner relies on Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. It is to be remembered that, admittedly, as I mentioned earlier, the petitioners in both these writ petitions were appointed as HSST on same day, i.e., on 03.10.2000. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner in WP(C) No.9671 of 2022 is older than the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 on age basis. Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 is that Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is applicable. It will be better to extract Rule 37 Chapter XIV(A) of KER here: “37. (1) Seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post Provided that the period of service rendered in the parent school or in another school by a teacher, who is relived under rule 52, shall be reckoned for seniority on his reappointment to the parent school. (2) In the case of teachers in the same grade in the same unit whose date of commencement of continuous service is the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointment is also the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to age, the older being the senior.” 9. As per Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER seniority of a teacher in any grade/in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade/in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post. As per Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER seniority of a teacher in any grade/in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade/in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post. Rule 37(2) says that in case of teachers in same grade in the same unit, whose date of commencement of continuous service is the same, the seniority shall be decided with reference to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointment is also the same, the seniority shall be decided with reference to the age, the older being the senior. The contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 is that she worked in the same school in the high school section as HSA from 28.06.1999 to 13.10.1999 before her continuous service start on 03.10.2000. Therefore, relying the principle in Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A), it is contended that the petitioner in WP(C) No.7070 of 2022 is senior to the petitioner in the other case because, her first appointment was on 28.06.1999. To consider this point, this Court has to decide whether Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is applicable for deciding the seniority of higher secondary school teachers. 10. Chapter XIV(A) of KER deals with the conditions of service of aided school teachers. Chapter XXXII was inserted in KER as per GO(P) No.331/2001/G.Edn. Dated 09.11.2011 published in Gazette dated 12.11.2001. Chapter XXXII deals with the method of appointment and qualifications of teachers and non-teachers staff in aided higher secondary schools. Rule 2 of Chapter XXXII of KER deals with the method of appointment and qualification of teachers and non-teaching staff. It will be better to extract Rule 2 Chapter XXXII of KER here: “2. Method of appointment and qualification of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff -Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the method of appointment and qualifications of the teaching and non -teaching staff in the aided Higher Secondary School in the State shall be as prescribed in this Chapter.” 11. In Rule 2, it is clearly stated that, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the method of appointment and qualification of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the aided higher secondary school in the state shall be as prescribed in this Chapter, i.e., Chapter XXXII. Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII deals with the qualifications for appointment to different categories. In Rule 2, it is clearly stated that, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the method of appointment and qualification of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the aided higher secondary school in the state shall be as prescribed in this Chapter, i.e., Chapter XXXII. Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII deals with the qualifications for appointment to different categories. Serial No.1 in Rule 6 deals with the post of Principal. It will be beneficial to extract Serial No.1 along with its note in Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER here. 6. Qualifications:-No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category in column (2) in the table below under the method specified in column (3) unless he possesses the Qualifications prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (4) there of. Sl. No Category Method of Appointment Qualifications (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Principal By Promotion (1) Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala. (2) B. Ed. Degree from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala. (3) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years at Higher Secondary Level under the same Educational Agency. Note -1. In the absence of persons having qualification as specified above, approved teaching experience at High School /Upper/ Primary/Lower Primary School's under the same Educational Agency shall be considered. 2. Such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying Service and shall not be reckoned for Seniority. 3. Such persons must possess a minimum Service of Six years as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior/Junior)" By transfer (1) Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a Qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala. (2) B. Ed. Degree from any of the Universities in Kerala or qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala. (3) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years under the same Educational Agency 12. From the above, it is clear that the qualification for promotion to the post of Principal is Master’s Degree with not less than 50% marks, B.Ed degree and minimum approved teaching experience of twelve years at higher secondary level under the same educational agency. (3) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years under the same Educational Agency 12. From the above, it is clear that the qualification for promotion to the post of Principal is Master’s Degree with not less than 50% marks, B.Ed degree and minimum approved teaching experience of twelve years at higher secondary level under the same educational agency. It is true that, in Note 1 Serial No.1, it is stated that in the absence of person having qualification as prescribed above, approved teaching experience at high school/upper primary/lower primary schools under the same educational agency shall be considered. But Note 2 to Serial No.1 in Rule 6, Chapter XXXII of KER specifically states that such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying service and shall not be reckoned for seniority. 13. Therefore, note 1 is for the purpose of qualifying service alone and not for the purpose of seniority. The approved teaching experience in a High School/Upper Primary/Lower Primary schools under the same educational agency can be considered for qualifying service only if there are no candidates possessing qualification mentioned in (1) to (3) of Sl. No.1 to Rule 6, Chapter XXXII KER. Admittedly, the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 7070/2022 had served as HSA in the same school from 28.06.1999 to 13.10.1999 in a short term vacancy. But, this service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of seniority in the light of Note 2 to Sl.No.(1) of Rule 6, Chapter XXXII of KER. The service in the High School section can be reckoned only for the purpose of qualifying service. Admittedly, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners in W.P.(C.) No. 7070/2022 and W.P.(C.) No. 9671/2022 are having required qualification as per Sl.No.1 in Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER. If that is the case, there is a clear prohibition for reckoning the service of the petitioner in W.P. (C.) No. 7070/2022 in the High School section for the purpose of seniority. A Division Bench of this Court in Manager Nanminda Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education, Tvm and Others [ 2015 (3) KLT 307 ] considered this point and held that for the purpose of seniority, the service mentioned in Note 3 of Sl.No.(1) of Rule 6 cannot be counted. A Division Bench of this Court in Manager Nanminda Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education, Tvm and Others [ 2015 (3) KLT 307 ] considered this point and held that for the purpose of seniority, the service mentioned in Note 3 of Sl.No.(1) of Rule 6 cannot be counted. Moreover, it is clear from Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII itself that the High School service can be reckoned only for the purpose of qualifying service and not for the purpose of seniority. 14. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 7070/2022 relied on Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. As I stated earlier, Rule 2 of Chapter XXXII of KER specifically states that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the method of appointment and qualification of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State shall be as prescribed in this Chapter. Therefore, the method of appointment and qualification of teaching and non-teaching staff is to be decided based on the Rules in Chapter XXXII of KER. In Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam Corporate Management Schools v. Sreelatha [ 2006 (3) KLT 867 ], a Division Bench of this Court considered this question in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portions of the above judgment hereunder. “9. Moreover Ext. R2(a) is a composite order conferring the benefit of employment assistance not only to the Higher Secondary School teachers but also to the teachers in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools as well, which is not covered by Chap.32. Merely because of the caption of that chapter, it cannot be said that the entire rules in KER including Chap.14A, in which R.51B appears, apply to Higher Secondary Teachers also. Chap.14A KER in which R.51B appears is captioned "the Conditions of Service of Aided School Teachers." The caption of Chap.23 KER is "Fixation of Strength of Teachers in Departmental and Aided School" which obviously cover government schools as well. But it is trite and nobody disputes the fact that the Government School teachers are not covered by KER. So, the caption of a chapter does not determine applicability of the entire rules. Therefore, merely because Chap.32 is captioned as "Method of Appointment of Teachers and Non teachers in Aided Higher Secondary School", it cannot be contended that Chap.14A KER as such is made applicable to teachers in Higher Secondary Section. So, the caption of a chapter does not determine applicability of the entire rules. Therefore, merely because Chap.32 is captioned as "Method of Appointment of Teachers and Non teachers in Aided Higher Secondary School", it cannot be contended that Chap.14A KER as such is made applicable to teachers in Higher Secondary Section. Examination of each of the provision in that chapter makes it clear that it in no way cover the teachers in Higher Secondary Section. R.51B applies only to teachers in aided High Schools and Primary Schools. It does not even apply to the members of teaching staff in such schools who are covered by R.9A of Chap.24A KER. Therefore, unless similar provision as contained in R.51B is incorporated in Chap.32, it may not be possible to contend that the benefits of employment assistance available to the dependents of aided High School and Primary School teachers shall be extended to the vacancies available in Higher Secondary Section.” 15. The Division Bench clearly stated that merely because Chapter XXXII is captioned as method of appointment of teachers and non-teachers in aided Higher Secondary School, it cannot be contended that Chapter XIV(A) of KER as such is made applicable to teachers in the Higher Secondary Section. The Division Bench also observed that the examination of each of the provisions in that Chapter makes it clear that it no way covers the teachers in the Higher Secondary section. Therefore, the Division Bench in Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam's case (supra) also clearly stated that the method of appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in aided Higher Secondary School is to be decided based on the rules in Chapter XXXII of KER. The same view is taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Sam Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2009 (3) KLT 99 ]. The relevant portions of the above judgment is extracted hereunder : “9. The Government have prescribed the qualifications and method of appointment to various posts under the Higher Secondary wing by framing Rules, which are contained in Chap. XXXII of the KER. The various provisions in other Chapters of the KER are not applicable to the Higher Secondary wing. But, the Government have issued specific orders, extending the applicability of certain Rules to the Higher Secondary wing also. This Court had occasion to consider the above aspect in Jayasree's case (supra). R.2 of Chap. XXXII of the KER. The various provisions in other Chapters of the KER are not applicable to the Higher Secondary wing. But, the Government have issued specific orders, extending the applicability of certain Rules to the Higher Secondary wing also. This Court had occasion to consider the above aspect in Jayasree's case (supra). R.2 of Chap. XXXII of the KER also provides that the special provisions contained in Chap. XXXII will prevail over the Rules in other Chapters. 10. In view of the above legal position, unless the Government issue an order making applicable the provisions of R.35 of Chap. XIVA of the KER to the Higher Secondary wing also, all the Higher Secondary Schools under the Educational Agency should be treated as one Unit, for the purpose of appointment, promotion, transfer, retrenchment etc.” 16. Thereafter, in Ramesan and Others v. Manoj Kumar K. and others [ 2019 (3) KHC 942 ] also, a Division Bench of this Court considered the same question. It will be better to extract the relevant portions of the above judgment hereunder: 11. “If we take a parallel as available under S.37(2), the date of first appointment is of Ramesan as a UPSA and he should get the seniority in the cadre of HSST. It cannot in any event go by age as found in Ext.P19. But R.2 in Chapter XXXII is a non -obstante clause, making the method of appointment and promotion in the Higher Secondary section to be only in accordance with Chapter XXXII, in exclusion of the other provisions in the KER. We are hence of the opinion that there could be no parallel drawn from R.37. Ext.P19 as held by the learned Single Judge also will have no effect, especially the same being not an order under Art.166 of the Constitution of India…...” 17. In the light of the above authoritative judgments of the Division Bench in Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam's case (supra), Sam Joseph's case (supra) and Ramesan's case (supra), it is clear that Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER cannot be blindly accepted for the appointment and qualification of teaching and non-teaching staff in the Higher Secondary wing and for that purpose, Chapter XXXII of KER alone is to be followed in such situation. If that is the case, the 'first appointment' claim of the petitioner by relying on Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A) KER is to be rejected because Chapter XIV(A) of KER is not applicable for the appointment of the Higher Secondary school wing. Moreover, a perusal of the inter party judgment of this Court as evident by Ext.P8 will also shows that this Court considered this issue and found that in the absence of any order adopting the provisions of Chapter XIV(A) of KER particularly Rule 37(2) to the Higher Secondary school division, the matter is to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent and consequently directions were issued to the 2nd respondent which lead to Ext.P9. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P8 judgment hereunder: 7. “In reply, Sri.Elvin Peter P.J, submitted that the contentions of the 5th respondent and that of the Manager, edificed on Rule 37 (2) Chapter XIVA of the KER are completely untenable, since those provisions are not applicable to the Higher Secondary School division. He contended that it is now well settled, through a catena of judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the provisions of Chapter XIVA would apply to the Higher Secondary School division only if it is expressly adopted and that since there is no such adoption as of now, the provisions of Rule 37(2) cannot be pressed into strength by either of the aforementioned respondents. He thus reiteratingly, prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 8. When I consider the afore submissions, it is perspicuous that the rival contentions between the petitioner and the 5th respondent are edificed on Rule 37(2) Chapter XIVA of the KER, with the former asserting that it is not applicable to the Higher Secondary School division, while the latter contending it to be so. 9. Prima facie, in the absence of any orders adopting the provisions of Chapter XIVA, particularly Rule 37(2), to the Higher Secondary School division, I am of the view that the contentions of the 5th respondent and that of the 4th respondent -Manager will require to be carefully scrutinized by the competent Authority of the Department, namely the Director. 9. Prima facie, in the absence of any orders adopting the provisions of Chapter XIVA, particularly Rule 37(2), to the Higher Secondary School division, I am of the view that the contentions of the 5th respondent and that of the 4th respondent -Manager will require to be carefully scrutinized by the competent Authority of the Department, namely the Director. This is more so because, as seen above, the Government takes a stand that Ext.P2 is the only approved seniority list and therefore, the question whether Ext.P3 should be approved or otherwise will also have to be taken, at the first instance, by the Educational Authority and not by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the afore circumstances, I am firm in my mind that the 2nd respondent-Director must take up Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same after affording her, 5th respondent and 4th respondent -Manager an opportunity of being heard — either physically or through videoconferencing — thus culminating in an appropriate order on the aspects as to whether Ext.P2 seniority list deserves to be approved and whether the 5th respondent can be appointed as the Principal of the School, taking note of Rule 37(2) Chapter XIVA of the KER.” 18. Based on Ext.P8 judgment, Ext.P9 order is passed by the 3rd respondent and the same is confirmed by the Government as per Ext.P14. I am of the considered opinion that there is no need to interfere with Exts.P9 and P14 in the light of the above discussions. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on Ext.P10 judgment (Girijakumar S. and anr. v. Rajitha K.G. and others [ 2019 KHC 711 ]). But, in that judgment itself, it is clearly stated that Chapter XIV(A) of KER has no application to Chapter XXXII in the light of the judgment in Ramesan’s case (supra). 19. A strange contention was raised by the counsel appearing for the Manager relying Exts.P11 and P12. I am sorry to say that the counsel ought not have taken such a contention in the light of the fact that this Court has considered Ext.P5 Government Order in Ramesan’s case (supra) itself and held that, that Government Order is superseded. 19. A strange contention was raised by the counsel appearing for the Manager relying Exts.P11 and P12. I am sorry to say that the counsel ought not have taken such a contention in the light of the fact that this Court has considered Ext.P5 Government Order in Ramesan’s case (supra) itself and held that, that Government Order is superseded. In paragraph 12 of Ramesan’s case (supra), it is clearly stated that Ext.P11 in this writ petition which is produced as Ext.P5 in Ramesan’s case (supra) is already superseded. The counsel for the Manager also relied on Ext.P12 judgment dated 10.02.2017, in which also Ext.P11 Government Order is used. Exh.P5 mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Exh.P12 judgment is Ext.P11 Government Order in this writ petition. But in the light of Ramesan’s case (supra), Ext.P12 judgment has no application at all. The counsel appearing for the Manager ought to have brought to the notice of this Court about the observation of the Division Bench in Ramesan’s case (supra), in which it is clearly stated that Ext.P11 is superseded. Without making such submission the counsel relied on Ext.P11 and further relied Ext.P12 judgment in which Ext.P11 is relied. I am sorry to say that such a submission ought to have been avoided by the counsel appearing for the Manager. Then the counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.7070/2022 relied on Ext.P15 judgment of the Full Bench and contended that ‘date of first appointment has to be the date of appointment in the school and not in any particular grade’. A perusal of the facts in that case will show that the Full Bench was considering the question of promotion to the post of Headmaster from HSA. Since I have already considered the fact that Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is not applicable to the Higher Secondary Wing, Ext.P15 has no application at all. Then the counsel relied on Ext.P16 judgment (Lilly V.A. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2016 KHC 414 ]) and contended that the broken service can be considered for the purpose of determining the first appointment. In that decision also it is clearly stated in paragraph 12 that Chapter XIV(A) and the provisions thereunder would not apply to Chapter XXXII. Therefore that decision also will not help the petitioner. 20. A perusal of the impugned orders in W.P.(C). In that decision also it is clearly stated in paragraph 12 that Chapter XIV(A) and the provisions thereunder would not apply to Chapter XXXII. Therefore that decision also will not help the petitioner. 20. A perusal of the impugned orders in W.P.(C). No.7070/2022 will show that the Department relied on Rule 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER and said that since the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.9671/2022 is senior in age even though both petitioners were appointed on the same date, she is senior to the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.7070/2022. I am of the opinion that Chapter XIV(A) of KER need not be considered for that purpose. In Lilly’s case (supra) this Court considered a situation when there is no specific rule for calculating the seniority, what principle to be followed. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portions of the judgment in Lilly’s case: “13. In A.Janardhana (supra) it was held that in the absence of a rule, general principles would have to be applied. The well recognised canon of service jurisprudence for determining inter se seniority of members of the same service were stated to be: 'rule of continuous officiation or length of service or the date of entering into service and continuous uninterrupted service.........' (sic). 21. Therefore the well recognised canon of service jurisprudence for determining inter-se seniority of members of the same service is to be followed. If the date of appointment of two rival candidates are the same, the seniority has to be decided based on the age of the rival candidates. In this case admittedly the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.9671/2022 is senior in age considering the age of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.7070/2022. Therefore, without relying on Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER, the general service jurisprudence is to be followed for deciding seniority. Hence the petitioner in W.P. (C). No.9671/2022 is the senior compared to the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.7070/2022. Therefore there is nothing to interfere with the impugned orders in W.P.(C). No.7070/2022. 22. Before parting with the case, it is to be noted that there is no clear provision in Chapter XXXII of KER about the manner in which the seniority is to be decided if the commencement of service of two rival teachers are on the same date. The rule making authority has to think about the same. There is a vacuum in XXXII of KER on this aspect. The rule making authority has to think about the same. There is a vacuum in XXXII of KER on this aspect. The rule making authority has to decide whether Rule 37 Chapter XIV(A) KER is to be made applicable to the teachers in Higher Secondary Wing in such situation or a separate set of rules is to be framed to overcome the situation. Therefore, the 1st Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the respondent State of Kerala for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. 23. The upshot of the above discussion is that W.P.(C). No.7070/2022 is to be dismissed and W.P.(C). No.9671/2022 is to be allowed by directing the Department to implement the orders of appointing the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 9671/2022 as the Principal with effect from 01.04.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.9671/2022 is going to retire 31.05.2023. Therefore necessary orders shall be passed forthwith by the 5th respondent, the Manager and the same should be approved by the Department forthwith. Let the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.9671/2022 retire as Principal on 31.05.2023 with happiness. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed in the following manner: 1. W.P.(C). No.7070/2022 is dismissed. 2. W.P.(C) No.9671/2022 is allowed. The 5th respondent in W.P.(c) No.9671 of 2022 is directed to appoint the petitioner, Sangeetha R.Nair as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School, Kandamangalam with effect from 01.04.2019 within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and forward the same to the 3rd respondent. 3. The 3rd respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the proposal for approval from the 5th respondent. 3. Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the 1st respondent – The State of Kerala for taking appropriate steps in the light of the observations made in paragraph 22.