The main legal point established is that under the Kerala Education Rules, qualified non-teaching staff in aided schools are entitled to promotion without the need for a formal application, and the school managers have a legal duty to promote such qualified staff.

Sreedharan, J.

Same, issues arise for consideration in these appeals. Writ Appeal 309/1993 is filed by Sri.T.P. Rajendran, petitioner in O.P.6182/1989. Manager of H.M.Y.S. High School, Kolluvallikkad, Moothakunnam, who was the petitioner in O.P.6178/1989, is the appellant in Writ Appeal 333/1993. One Smt.P.N. Sathy, who was working as a part-time Menial in the school, filed O.P.3727/1990 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Manager of the school to implement the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government directing her appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the School. These Original Petitions were disposed of by a learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 11-2-1993. Sri. Rajendran and the Manager of the school challenge the said decision.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: - Smt.P.N. Sathy was appointed as part-time Menial in the aided school on 8-1-1985. At that time, the school was not a complete High School. Her appointment was approved by District Educational Officer by order dated 1-3-1985. She looks the S.S.L.C. examination conducted in March 1986. Result of that examination was published on 27-5-1986. She came out successful in that examination. According to her, this fact, namely her success in the S.S.L.C. examination, was immediately intimated to the Manager of the School. The school became a complete High School during the academic year 1986-87. Consequently, one post each in the category of Clerk, Peon and full-time Menial were sanctioned with effect from 2-6-1986. The post of part-time Menial, which was in existence, was abolished. Anticipating the vacancy of Lower Division Clerk and Peon, Manager of the school-invited applications for filling up these posts by a notice dated 13-5-1986. Last date for receipt of application was fixed as 17-5-1986. It appears that management took a decision on 18-5-1986 to appoint Sri. Rajendran as Clerk and one Sri.K.R. Babu as Peon in the additionally sanctioned posts. Smt. Salhy was appointed to the post of full-time Menial. Aggrieved by the denial of appointment in the higher post, Sathy filed appeal before the District Educational Officer on 10-6-1986. Since the appeal was not taken up for consideration by the District Educational Officer even after the lapse of a reasonable lime, she moved this Court by filing O.P.8330/1986. By judgment dated 5-11-1986, this Court directed the District Educational Officer to dispose of the appeal before granting approval to the appointment of Sri. Rajendran as Clerk.

3. District Educational Officer by his order dated 6-1-1987 held that denial of promotion to Salhy to the post of Lower Division Clerk was illegal and violative of the Rules contained in the Kerala Education Rules. It was also held that Sathy was the legitimate claimant to the post of Clerk. Consequently, he refused to approve the appointment of Rajendran as Clerk. The issue was then taken up in appeal by the Manager of the school as well as Rajendran before the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam. Deputy Director of Education heard all the parties in detail. By order dated 10-9-1987, he confirmed the order passed by the District Educational Officer and dismissed the appeal. Against this order passed by the Deputy Director, Manager of the School and Rajendran preferred appeals before the Director of Public Instruction. That appeal was rejected on 18-6-1988 and affirmed the orders passed by the subordinate authorities. Thereupon, Manager of the School and Rajendran filed revision petitions before the Government. Government dismissed those revision petitions by G.O.(Rl.) No.1884/89/G.Edn. Dated 12-6-1989. Manager of the School and Rajendran filed Original Petitions 6178/1989 and 6182/1989 respectively questioning the orders passed by the educational authorities and the Government, referred to earlier. This Court did not grant slay of operation of the orders passed by the educational autho