JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. All these writ petitions relate to appointment to the post of HSST Junior (Zoology) in the BMHSS, Kottayam and appointment to the post of HSST (Zoology) in BHHSS, Mavelikkara. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are described/marked in W.P.(C)No.3501/2025, for convenience. 2. Corporate Manager of CMS Schools, Kottayam is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3501/2025. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P17 order dated 18.12.2024 of the 1 st respondent-State of Kerala and to direct the 4 th respondent-Regional Deputy Director to approve the appointment of the 5 th respondent as HSST Junior (Zoology) in BMGHSS, Kottayam with effect from 06.06.2019 and as HSST (Zoology) in BHHSS, Mavelikkara with effect from 01.06.2020. 3. W.P.(C) No.3546/2025 is filed by the 5 th respondent (who is presently working as HSST under the petitioner) in W.P.(C) No.3501/2025 seeking the same relief. W.P.(C) No.3584/2025 is filed by the 6 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.3501/2025 and who was appointed as HSST Junior under the petitioner, seeking to approve the appointment of the 6 th respondent as HSST Junior (Zoology) from 06.06.2019 and HSST (Zoology) from 01.06.2022 in implementation of Ext.P17 order. 4. W.P.(C) No.6890/2025 has been filed by one Aswathy Alex, who is also working as HSST (Zoology) in CMS HSS, Mallappally seeking to quash order dated 10.01.2025 to the extent of refusing to approve her appointment, from 11.07.2023. 5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3501/2025 states that he is the Corporate Manager of CMS Schools, a corporate educational agency of CSI Madhyakerala Dioceses, Kottayam. The educational agency runs a number of Schools. When a vacancy of HSST Junior (Zoology) arose in BMHSS, Kottayam on 01.06.2017 consequent to the promotion of Smt. Elizabeth Mathew, a notification was issued. Another vacancy of HSST (Zoology) arose in BHHSS, Mavelikkara consequent to the transfer of Smt. Elizabeth Mathew, HSST (Zoology) to BMGHSS, Kottayam. Ext.P2 notification dated 15.06.2018 was published to fill up the said post. 6. The 5 th respondent submitted Ext.P4 application and the 6 th respondent submitted Ext.P3 application. The 5 th respondent had prior experience as Guest Lecturer and Teacher in various Colleges/Schools. Selection Committee constituted had a nominee who was Additional Secretary to Government. Ext.P2 notification dated 15.06.2018 was published to fill up the said post. 6. The 5 th respondent submitted Ext.P4 application and the 6 th respondent submitted Ext.P3 application. The 5 th respondent had prior experience as Guest Lecturer and Teacher in various Colleges/Schools. Selection Committee constituted had a nominee who was Additional Secretary to Government. In the interview conducted, the 5 th respondent stood at rank No.1 and the 6 th respondent stood at rank No.2. 7. Therefore, the 5 th respondent was appointed as HSST (Zoology) in BHHSS, Mavelikkara and the 6 th respondent was appointed as HSST Junior (Zoology) in BMHSS, Kottayam. While so, one Smt. Susan Goerge, HSST (Natural Science), BIGHSS, Pallom raised a claim for by- transfer appointment to the post of HSST Junior (Zoology) submitting an application dated 14.06.2019. She also claimed appointment by transfer to the post of HSST (Zoology), against the post to which the 5 th respondent was appointed. 8. The 4 th respondent heard the petitioner and the 6 th respondent and directed the petitioner to make by- transfer appointment to the post of HSST Junior in BMGHSS, Kottayam. The 3 rd respondent also considered the claim raised by Susan George for appointment to the post of HSST (Zoology) in BHHSS, Mavelikkara in which the 5 th respondent was appointed. The 3 rd respondent ordered by-transfer appointment against the said vacancy. 9. Though the petitioner challenged the two orders passed in favour of the said Susan George, the Government issued Ext.P9 order dated 18.12.2020 rejecting the challenge against Exts.P7 and P8 orders. In W.P.(C) No.2548/2021 filed by the said Smt. Susan George, this Court directed the petitioner to prepare the seniority list of HSST (Zoology). Accordingly, the petitioner prepared the seniority list and forwarded to the 2 nd respondent. 10. The Government ordered appointment of Smt.Susan George as HSST (Zoology) in BHHSS, Mavelikkara with effect from 06.06.2019 notionally after cancelling the appointment given to the 5 th respondent. The petitioner shifted the 5 th respondent as HSST Junior in BMHSS, Kottayam with effect from 06.06.2019, considering her rank in the common rank list, her age and her experience. Consequently, the appointment of the 6 th respondent was cancelled. 11. The petitioner issued Ext.P12 order confirming the cancellation of appointment of the 6 th respondent. The 6 th respondent challenged Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.30477/2022. Consequently, the appointment of the 6 th respondent was cancelled. 11. The petitioner issued Ext.P12 order confirming the cancellation of appointment of the 6 th respondent. The 6 th respondent challenged Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.30477/2022. The 6 th respondent again filed a revision before the 1 st respondent and W.P.(C) No.33403/2022 in this Court. This Court directed the 1 st respondent to consider the revision petition as per Ext.P14 judgment. The 1 st respondent allowed the revision filed by the 6 th respondent and directed approval of appointment of the 6 th respondent as HSST Junior (Zoology) with effect from 06.06.2019. 12. The petitioner states that Ext.P17 order is illegal. When, among the two vacancies notified, one vacancy was not available, the 5 th respondent who is the first rank holder ought to have been appointed in the available vacancy. In W.P.(C) No.3546/2025, the 5 th respondent also took the same stand. 13. In W.P.(C) No.3584/2025, the 6 th respondent stated that she was appointed as HSST Junior (Zoology) after a selection process and that the 5 th respondent has no claim over the post. However, the Manager ordered to shift the 5 th respondent to the post occupied by the 6 th respondent. The 6 th respondent stated that there are many number of vacancies of HSST (Zoology) and HSST Junior (Zoology) available under the Management and hence there is no requirement for accommodating the 5 th respondent or for cancelling the appointment of the 6 th respondent. 14. In W.P.(C) No.6890/2025, the petitioner Aswathy Alex submitted that she is presently working as HSST (Zoology) in CMS HSS, Mallappally on promotion on 11.06.2023. In fact, she was eligible for promotion as HSST in 2018 itself. The said Aswathy Alex stated that in the year 2019, there were 7 vacancies available for by-transfer appointment in the cadre of HSST Junior. She is entitled to get promoted to any one of the remaining vacancies of HSST Junior in the year 2019. 15. In W.P.(C) No.3501/2025, the Regional Deputy Director filed a counter affidavit. The Regional Deputy Director submitted that Smt. Susan George was appointed as HSST (Zoology) after cancelling the appointment given to the 5 th respondent. As per Ext.P17, the Government issued order directing to appoint the 6 th respondent as HSST Junior with effect from 06.06.2019 and as HSST (Zoology) with effect from 01.06.2022. The Regional Deputy Director submitted that Smt. Susan George was appointed as HSST (Zoology) after cancelling the appointment given to the 5 th respondent. As per Ext.P17, the Government issued order directing to appoint the 6 th respondent as HSST Junior with effect from 06.06.2019 and as HSST (Zoology) with effect from 01.06.2022. Before issuing Ext.P17 order, all parties concerned were heard and the facts were thoroughly verified and confirmed by the 1 st respondent. Therefore, there is no illegality in Ext.P17. 16. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.6890/2025. The petitioner submitted that the appointment of Aswathy Alex with effect from 11.07.2023 is maintainable. But, she is ineligible for appointment as HSST / HSST Junior against any vacancy prior to 22.07.2018 as Aswathy Alex did not possess SET qualification. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and the learned Government Pleader representing the 1 st respondent. 18. Considering the facts emerging from the pleadings, it is evident that the issue arose due to the failure on the part of the Manager to draw seniority lists promptly and due to an integrated selection made for appointment to the post of HSST and HSST Junior, though separate notifications were published and separate applications were invited for appointment to both the posts. 19. Ext.P1 is the notification for appointment to the post of HSST Junior and Ext.P2 is the notification for recruitment of HSST. The 5 th respondent in her Ext.P4 application, has indicated that the application is for appointment to the post of HSST (Zoology). At the same time, Ext.P3 application submitted by the 6 th respondent does not give the name of the post but only states that the application is for appointment in the subject Zoology. The Selection Committee proceeded to make a consolidated select list for both the posts. Ext.P6 rank list would show that the 5 th respondent was ranked No.1 and the 6 th respondent was ranked No.2. 20. The 5 th respondent was appointed as HSST (Zoology) in the Mavelikkara School and the 6 th respondent was appointed as HSST Junior (Zoology) in Kottayam School. Both the appointments were made on 01.06.2019. One HSST under the Corporate Management Smt. Susan George filed W.P.(C) No.17533/2019 seeking appointment to one of the posts of HSST. 20. The 5 th respondent was appointed as HSST (Zoology) in the Mavelikkara School and the 6 th respondent was appointed as HSST Junior (Zoology) in Kottayam School. Both the appointments were made on 01.06.2019. One HSST under the Corporate Management Smt. Susan George filed W.P.(C) No.17533/2019 seeking appointment to one of the posts of HSST. Pursuant to the common judgment in W.P.(C) No.7009/2021 and W.P.(C) No.2548/2021, this Court delivered judgment dated 30.06.2022, pursuant to which the aforesaid Smt. Susan George had to be given by-transfer promotion as HSST. 21. In order to appoint the said Susan George as HSST, the 5 th respondent was removed from the said post and Smt. Susan George was appointed as HSST. As the 5 th respondent was rank No.1 in the merit list, the Manager deemed it fit to remove the 2 nd rank holder - 6 th respondent from the post of HSST Junior and to accommodate the 5 th respondent against that post. It is the legality of the said appointment which is in issue. 22. Had the Management resorted to separate selection process and had drawn separate rank list for the two vacancies of HSST and HSST Junior, the issue would not have arisen. This should have been so done, especially in view of the fact that the recruitment to the two posts was pursuant to two different recruitment notifications. 23. When Smt. Susan George is appointed as HSST, it is the 5 th respondent who will have to be removed from the post of HSST in order to accommodate Susan George. The 6 th respondent had worked as HSST Junior (Zoolog)y in the Kottayam School from 06.06.2019 to 25.07.2022 against a promotion vacancy. The Director of General Education has directed that the 6 th respondent can be appointed in the vacancy of HSST which arose in the CHMHSS, Mallappally on 01.04.2022. In the consequential vacancy of HSST Junior (Zoology), the 5 th respondent also can be accommodated. It is in these circumstances that the 1 st respondent directed that the 5 th respondent be accommodated as HSST Junior (Zoology) in Kottayam Baker Memorial School. 24. As far as Smt. Aswathy Alex (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6890/2025) is concerned, her claim is against the vacancy of HSST (Zoology) in CMS HSS, Mallappally with effect from 11.07.2023. It is in these circumstances that the 1 st respondent directed that the 5 th respondent be accommodated as HSST Junior (Zoology) in Kottayam Baker Memorial School. 24. As far as Smt. Aswathy Alex (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6890/2025) is concerned, her claim is against the vacancy of HSST (Zoology) in CMS HSS, Mallappally with effect from 11.07.2023. In Ext.P3 order dated 10.01.2025, it has been found that the 6 th respondent has superior claim over the post. Therefore, the claim of the said petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6890/2025 is unsustainable. 25. In the afore facts of the case, I find no illegality in Ext.P17 G.O.(MS) dated 18.12.2024. The writ petitions are therefore disposed of as follows: (i) W.P.(C) No.3501/2025, W.P.(C) No.3546/2025 and W.P.(C) No.6890/2025 are dismissed. (ii) W.P.(C) No.3584/2025 is disposed of directing the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner effected as per Ext.P1.