K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The common question that arises for decision in these cases is whether the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 264 (F.B.)) is no longer good law, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. Jose (2007 (1) KLT 22 (SC)). Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

W.A.No.2936/2009:

2. This Writ Appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the facts. Though, we propose to answer only the question referred to the Full Bench, for effectively dealing with that question, a brief resume of the facts is necessary. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. It is a Corporate Educational Agency, managing the Latin Catholic Schools under the Diocese of Neyyattinkara. St. George L.P. School, Palode is one of the aided Schools managed by it. The Manger of the School appointed the 6th respondent N.Y. Ammini (5th respondent in the Writ Petition), as the Headmistress of the said School with effect from 1.4.2004. The appellant herein, the 7th respondent in the Writ Petition, who was a senior Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) working in the School, staked her claim for promotion to the said vacancy in which the 6th respondent was appointed. The Assistant Educational Officer (A.E.O.), Palode, by Ext.P2 order dated 6.8.2004 declined to approve the said appointment, for the reason that it was made ignoring the claim of the senior hand, the appellant herein. The First respondent filed appeal before the District Educational Officer (D.E.O.), Attingal. The said officer, by Ext.P3 order dated 27.5.2005, affirmed the order of the A.E.O., on the ground that N.Y. Ammini (6th respondent) is junior to Smt. M. Belsi (appellant). The Manager filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction (DPI). The DPI, by Ext.P5 order dated 21.3.2006, dismissed the revision for the reason that the Manager has not produced any evidence to prove that the School is managed by a minority community, entitled to get the protection of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. Challenging Ext.P5 order, the Manager filed a revision before the Government. The said revision was heard and dismissed by the State Government, by Ext.P7 order dated 11.03.2008. The revision was dismissed, relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra). By that order, the first respondent was directed to appoint the appellant as Headmistress of the School. Challenging Exts.P2, P3, P5 and P7 and seeking consequential reliefs, the Writ Petition was filed.

3. The learned Single Judge noticed that the fact that the educational institution is managed by a minority community, was not disputed by any one. Therefore, the Manager is entitled to appoint any qualified hand, overlooking the claims of the seniors, to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress. The learned Judge also noticed that though the procedure suggested in Kurian Lizy (supra) was not followed while overlooking the senior, the same will not vitiate the appointment order, as Kurian Lizy (supra) was impliedly overruled by Malankara Syrian Catholic College (supra). This view was taken, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Manager, S.S.H.S. School v. Lijin (2007 (3) KLT 663). In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned orders and ordered to approve the appointment of the 6th respondent Smt. N.Y. Ammini. Challenging the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the 7th respondent in the Writ Petition Smt. M. Belsi has preferred this appeal.

4. When the Writ Appeal was heard, a Division Bench of this Court felt that the view expressed in Lijin (supra) that Kurian Lizy (supra) has been overruled by the Apex Court in Malankara Syrian Catholic College (supra), is, prima facie, not correct. Therefore, the Writ Appeal was referred to the Full Bench, to decide on the correctness of the view expre