Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether a punishment of barring of two increments can be a disqualification for promotion under the Kerala Education Rules (for short, KER). The appellant is the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following :

2. The appellant is working as a Full Time Menial in the 4th respondent's school. He was appointed to that post on 01.02.1991. His appointment was approved and he was continuing in that post since then. While so, a vacancy in the post of Clerk arose in the school on 01.04.2000. A Peon by name C.G.Jayadas, who has got continuous approved service in that post since 02.12.1991, was the rightful claimant to that vacancy. It is common ground that the said Jayadas has relinquished his claim for promotion to the post of Clerk on 22.05.2004. The appellant is the next person to be considered for promotion to the said vacancy of Clerk. In the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the allegation of insubordination and he was suspended from service on 21.12.2000. The Assistant Educational Officer enquired into the charges leveled against the appellant and submitted a report, finding him guilty as per Ext.R4(a). Relying on the said report, the Manager, by Ext.R4(b) order dated 21.08.2001, imposed a punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect on the appellant and he was reinstated in service on the said date. Against the punishment imposed on him, the appellant moved the District Educational Officer by filing two representations, one dated 24.08.2001 and the other dated 13.12.2001. The said representations were disposed of by the District Educational Officer by Ext.R4(c) order dated 22.09.2003 holding that the allegations against the appellant were found true and the Manager is competent to impose penalty on him. It is also stated in the order that because of the pendency of OP NO.28868/02 filed by the appellant before this court, he is not interfering in the matter. The appellant challenged Ext.R4(c) order before the Director of Public Instructions. The said challenge was repelled and thereafter, he moved the Government in revision. The Government also dismissed his revision petition. Challenging those orders, the appellant has preferred WP(C) No.9429/08 before this court, which is even now pending. After the relinquishment of the claim of Mr.C.G.Jayadas, the Manager considered the claim of the appellant for promotion and by Ext.P9 proceedings dated 11.06.2004, his claim was rejected. The Manager took the view that the appellant cannot be entrusted with the confidential and responsible functions of Clerk. According to him, only a person, with utmost dedication and sincerity to the work, can be appointed to the post of Clerk, as the person in the said post has to do the entire ministerial work of the school and also handle monetary transactions. The main challenge in the Writ Petition was against Ext.P9. In fact, the Original Petition was filed, seeking a direction to the Manager to consider his claim for promotion. During the pendency of the OP, as per the interim order of this court, the appellant's claim was considered and rejected by Ext.P9. So, the Original Petition was amended, incorporating the challenge against that order.

3. In the Original Petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent, pointing out that the action of the Manager, imposing the punishment as per Ext.R4(b), was never ratified by the District Educational Officer. On similar lines, the 3rd respondent DEO has also filed a counter affidavit. The 4th respondent Manager filed a detailed counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the Original Petition.

4. The learned Single Judge heard the OP along with OP No.39161 of 2002, which was filed by the Manager, challenging the conflicting orders issued by the Government concerning how the post of Clerk should be filled up. The learned Single Judge dismis