Ramachandran Nair, J.

The controversy is as to who between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is eligible to be appointed as Headmistress of the High School in the regular vacancy that arose on 01/04/2011. While the case of the petitioner is that the District Educational Officer as well as the Deputy Director found petitioner's eligibility, the Government vide Ext.P12 reversed their decision and upheld the decision of the Management appointing the 3rd respondent as Headmistress and ordered approval of the same. It is against Ext.P12 the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the said order and for a declaration that she is entitled to be appointed to the post of Headmistress that arose on 01/04/2011.

2. We have heard Shri. K.G. Anil Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. Abraham Vakanal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd and 4th respondents.

3. There is no dispute that the 3rd respondent is senior in service to the petitioner by 7 years, and therefore if qualification remained equal the 3rd respondent is the necessary choice. However, the petitioner's spec