JUDGMENT : Rival claim between the petitioner and the 5th respondent to the post of HSST (Junior) Economics in the school under the managership of the 4th respondent, is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. 2. As per Ext.P1 dated 06.06.2005, the petitioner was appointed as HSA (Social Studies) from 06.06.2005 onwards, in a regular vacancy. The appointment was duly approved. 3. Much later, Higher Secondary section in the school commenced in the year 2011-12. The sanctioned posts were, eight posts of HSST (Senior) and three posts of HSST (Junior). In the year 2013-14, six posts of HSST (Junior) were sanctioned. Subsequently, during the year 2019-20, one post of HSST (Senior) and two posts of HSST (Junior) were sanctioned. As per Ext.P5 Government Order dated 06.02.2019, one post of HSST (Junior) was upgraded as HSST (Senior). Thus, during the year 2019-20, there existed ten posts of HSST (Junior). One post of HSST (Junior) remained to be filled up. 4. The Rules require 25% of the posts to be filled up by, “by transfer appointment”. Only two HSST (Junior) teachers were in service under the “by transfer” quota. The petitioner is the senior most HSA, entitled for promotion to the post of HSST (Junior). Though the petitioner claimed promotion and appointment as HSST (Junior), ignoring the same, the 5th respondent was appointed. 5. The petitioner challenged before the third respondent – Regional Deputy Director, the appointment of the 5th respondent and also sought his appointment as HSST (Junior). As per Ext.P10 the Regional Deputy Director rejected the claim. The appeal preferred before the Director of General of Education – second respondent was also rejected as per Ext.P13 order. This was followed by Ext.P13(a) order of the third respondent approving the appointment of the 5th respondent. It is aggrieved thereby that the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. I have heard Sri.Murali Pallath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Sri.Ranjit Babu, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent. I have also perused the counter affidavit and reply affidavit on record. 7. The total number of posts of HSST (Junior) are ten. There exists one vacancy. The Kerala Education Rules prescribe two modes of appointment; one is, “by transfer appointment” and the other is, “direct appointment”. I have also perused the counter affidavit and reply affidavit on record. 7. The total number of posts of HSST (Junior) are ten. There exists one vacancy. The Kerala Education Rules prescribe two modes of appointment; one is, “by transfer appointment” and the other is, “direct appointment”. 25% of the total posts is to be filled up by, “by transfer appointment” and 75% posts is to be filled up by “direct appointment”. The total number of posts being ten, neither the 25% nor 75% would be a whole number, but a fraction. The claim of the petitioner is that, 25% of 10, which comes to 2.5, is to be rounded off as 3. Since only two posts out of 10 posts of HSST (Junior) have been filled up by, “by transfer appointment”, the petitioner who is the senior most, is liable to be accommodated towards the third post, to satisfy the quota of 25%. 8. The director of Higher Secondary Education had issued a Circular dated 30.08.2017 (Ext.P14), wherein it is stated that, “by transfer appointments” shall not exceed 25%. Ext.P15 is a Government communication dated 27.07.2019, reiterating the above. The petitioner challenges Exts.P14 and P15 also. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar 2005 (2) SCC 10 and Exts.P19, 20 and 21 judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32968/2015, W.A. No.1277/2019 and W.P.(C) No.22064/2019 to contend that, the rule of rounding off is that, if the fraction is one-half or more, it should be rounded off to the next whole digit. 9. The learned senior counsel for the 5th respondent would on the other hand submit that, rounding off a fraction to the next whole digit is not an invariable rule. Exts.P14 and P15, Circular and communication by the Department and the Government, mandated that, “by transfer appointments” should not exceed 25%. It is strictly in conformity with the relevant rule under the KER. There is no violation of the rule. The total number of posts being ten, if three teachers are appointed by, “by transfer appointment”, the relevant Rule, the circular, and instructions of the Government as above, would be violated, it is contended. Chapter XXXII Rule 4(3) reads thus : 3. Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) 1. (i) By transfer from qualified High School Assistants in the subject concerned under the Educational Agency. Chapter XXXII Rule 4(3) reads thus : 3. Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) 1. (i) By transfer from qualified High School Assistants in the subject concerned under the Educational Agency. (ii) In the absence of qualified hands under item (i) above, by transfer from qualified Upper Primary School Assistants / Lower Primary School Assistants in the subject concerned under the Educational Agency. 2. By direct appointment. Note:-(i) 25% of the total posts shall be filled up by the method specified in item (1) above on seniority-cum suitability basis and 75% of such post shall be filled up by direct appointment. (ii) When qualified persons are not available to fill up the vacancies set apart for appointment by transfer under item 1 above, such vacancies also shall be allotted for direct appointment. Going by the Note to the Rule, 25% of the total posts is to be filled up by, “by transfer appointment”, and 75% by “direct recruitment”. In the present case, 25% of 10 comes to 2.5. Whether it has to be rounded off as 3 or not, is the short question. 10. The Apex Court in Pawan Kumar's case (supra) held thus:- “..... The rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense is: if part is one half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part if less than half then its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. .....” In Ext.P19 judgment, upon which reliance is placed by the petitioner, the judgment of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar's case was relied on to hold that, while considering the filling up of posts by, “by transfer appointment”, if the 25% works out to be 2.75, it is to be rounded off to 3. The said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1277 of 2019 as per Ext.P20. A similar view was adopted in Ext.P21 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22064/2019. 11. It is to be noticed that, in Ext.P19 judgment which was affirmed in Ext.P20, there was a Circular issued by the Director of Higher Secondary Education which required that, while computing the 25%, if the result is a fraction, it is to be rounded off to the next whole digit. 11. It is to be noticed that, in Ext.P19 judgment which was affirmed in Ext.P20, there was a Circular issued by the Director of Higher Secondary Education which required that, while computing the 25%, if the result is a fraction, it is to be rounded off to the next whole digit. It is on the face of such Circular, considered along with the judgment of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar's case that this Court held that, fraction is to be rounded off to the next whole digit. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus :- “.....By Circular No.ACDC.1/9000/2013/HSE dated 18.07.2013 the second respondent had issued guidelines for effecting appointment to teaching/non teaching posts in aided Higher Secondary Schools. The Circular specifically stipulate that 25% of the total posts of HSST(Jr) should be filled up by appointing HSA/UPSA/LPSA through by-transfer appointment. It is further stipulated that if, while computing 25% of the posts, the result is a fraction, that shall be considered as a whole number. Since in the instant case 25% of the 11 posts works out to 2.75, necessarily that has to be taken as 3 going by the decision of the Apex Court and the Circular mentioned above. .....” The above was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1277 of 2019 (Ext.P20). It was observed thus :- “Before the learned Single Judge reliance was also placed on a circular issued by the Government, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A2 along with this writ appeal, which specifically stipulate that while computing 25% of the post if the result is a fraction, it shall be considered as the next whole number. .....” The Division bench made specific reference to the circular which required the fraction to be rounded off to the next whole digit. 12. As held by the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar's case and by this Court in the judgments referred to supra, the approach in rounding off a fraction of half and above, to the next whole digit, is based on logic and common sense. That would no doubt be the general rule. However, is it an absolute rule? I do not think so. There could be instances where there are sufficient indications to the contrary and such construction does not do violence to the Rule. That would no doubt be the general rule. However, is it an absolute rule? I do not think so. There could be instances where there are sufficient indications to the contrary and such construction does not do violence to the Rule. In the case at hand, the Director of Higher Secondary Education issued Ext.P14 Circular, and the Government issued Ext.P15 letter mandating that, “by transfer appointments” shall not exceed 25%. So if three persons are appointed by, “by transfer appointment” then it will exceed 25%. Therefore, adhering to Exts.P14 and P15, only 2 posts could be filled up by, “by transfer appointment”. That would be, rounding off the fraction to the nearest lower whole digit. 13. Then the question is, whether the directions in Exts.P14 and P15 violate Chapter XXXII Rule 4(3). Evidently, Exts.P14 and P15 does not in any manner violate the Rule. Exts.P14 and P15 only mandate that, “by transfer appointments” shall not be in excess of 25%. This does not in any manner violate the Rule which require 25% of seats to be filled up by, “by transfer appointment”. Exts.P14 and P15 cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. 14. Going by Exts.P14 and P15, read along with Chapter XXXII Rule 4(3), when ten posts of HSST (Junior) was available in the school, the “by transfer appointment” could not exceed two. Ext.P10 order of the third respondent as affirmed in Ext.P13 by the second respondent, and the consequential approval of appointment of the 5th respondent under Ext.P13(a) are thus, in accordance with law. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner would raise a further contention that, the Rule must be understood as requiring appointment to the total posts in the ratio of, 25:75 i.e. 1:3. The first appointment is to be by, “by transfer”, followed by posts 2, 3 and 4 by “direct recruitment”. Then again the 5th post by, “by transfer”, and again posts 6, 7 and 8 by “direct recruitment”. The 9th post is to be filled up by, “by transfer” and the 10th post by “direct recruitment”. Therefore, the 10th post which is now sought to be filled up is to be by “direct recruitment”, it is contended. 16. I do not find the argument of the petitioner to be acceptable. In cases where such ratio is intended, the Government has specified it accordingly. Therefore, the 10th post which is now sought to be filled up is to be by “direct recruitment”, it is contended. 16. I do not find the argument of the petitioner to be acceptable. In cases where such ratio is intended, the Government has specified it accordingly. This is evident from Chapter XXXII Rule 4(1) and (2) which prescribe such ratio. Contradistinctively, in Rule 4(3), instead of specifying such ratio it is stated that, 25% out of the total posts is to be filled up by, “by transfer appointment” and 75% by “direct appointment”. If it was intended otherwise, it would have been specified that, appointments to the post shall be in the ratio of 1:3 between “by transfer appointment” and “direct appointment”. Therefore, the said argument is only to be rejected. On the discussions as above, the challenge raised in the writ petition, fails. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.