Balakrishnan Nair, J.

These two Writ Appeals arise out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.36375/2003 dated 211.2007. The correctness of the promotion granted to a Lower Division Clerk to the post of Upper Division Clerk, superseding a senior L.D. Clerk by the Manager of an aided private College, s the point that arises for decision in these cases. We are also called upon to decide whether the said Manager is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

2. This Writ Appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of this judgment. The 3rd respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The appellants were respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition. The writ petitioner approached this Court, challenging the proposal to promote the 2nd respondent to the post of U.D.Clerk, overlooking his claim. During the pendency of the writ petition, the said respondent was promoted as U.D.C., ignoring his claim. So, the writ petition was amended, challenging the said promotion and other consequential orders.

3. The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioner was working as Library Assistant in the Mar Athanasius College, Kothamangalam. There are three posts each of L.D.Clerk and U.D. Clerk in his College. He was promoted as L.D. Clerk by Ext.P1 order dated 2.2000. By Ext.P2 order dated 15.2002, his probation was declared with effect from 2.2001. He cleared the Account Test (Lower) held by the Public Service Commission in January 2002, the results of which were published in June, 2002. The 2nd respondent herein Mr.Ciju John was working as Lab/Library Assistant. He was promoted as L.D.Clerk by downgrading a vacant post of U.D.Clerk with effect from 8.2000 up to 13.2001. This was in the leave vacancy of Mr.M.A.Lazer, U.D. Clerk. Again the 2nd respondent was accommodated in the leave vacancy of Mr.E.K.Krishnan, U.D. Clerk from 16.3.2001 to 16.2001. Later, in the retirement vacancy of Mr.M.A.Lazer, U.D. Clerk, which arose on 5.2001, he was promoted as L.D.Clerk, downgrading the post of U.D.C with effect from 5.2001. All these promotions appear to have been made by Ext.P4 proceedings of the management, issued some time before 23.2003, which is the date of the covering letter of Ext.P4.

4. Thewrit petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation dated 17.2003, praying for promoting him as U.D.Clerk, being the seniormost qualified L.D.Clerk. The management called for a report on his representation, from the Senior Superintendent of the College. The said officer by Ext.P6, reported that the writ petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of U.D. Clerk. As per Ext.P6, it was reported that the last day of the Account Test Examination taken by the writ petitioner was 1.2002 and therefore, he is eligible for promotion with effect from 1.2002. In Ext.P6 it was also stated that Mr.Ciju John, the 2nd respondent herein cannot be considered for promotion to the post of U.D.Clerk. Exts.P7 and P8 are the seniority lists of non-teaching staff of the petitioners College, as on 11.2002 and 5.2003 respectively. In both the lists, the writ petitioner is shown as senior to the 2nd respondent. The said respondent passed the Account Test (Lower) in 1999. On coming to know about the proposal to promote the said respondent as U.D.C., the writ petitioner submitted Ext.P9

representation dated 110.2003 before the management, claiming promotion as U.D.Clerk. He also submitted Ext.P10 representation through proper channel on 10.11.2003 before the Director of Collegiate Education. But, ignoring his claim, Mr.Ciju John was promoted as U.D.Clerk, by Ext.P11 order dated 112.2003 with retrospective effect from 18.2001. In the meantime, the 2nd respondents probation was already declared in the cadre of L.D. Clerk by Ext.P12 order dated 6.2003 with retrospective effect from 19.8.2001.

In view of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the appointment of Mr.Ciju John as U.D.Clerk was not approved by the Director of Collegiate Education, as evident from Ext.P12(a)