Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These writ appeals, though arise from three writ petitions and relate to two different aided schools, were heard together, accepting the suggestion of the learned counsel appearing for all parties in that regard, in view of the identity of the questions of law arising for decision, it is pointed out at the Bar that there is conflict on issues of law and also on the approach adopted by the two learned single Judges in appreciating the relevant judicial precedents and applying them while rendering the judgments under appeal.

W.A. No. 1462 of 2012

2. This appeal is by the Manager of an aided Upper Primary school and Smt.K.u.Rukiya Beevi, a teacher in that school. Smt.lshoo Bai M. retired as Headmistress of that school on 31.3.2008. Smt.P.K.Rabiya was appointed as Headmistress with effect from 1.4.2008. She thereafter relinquished her claim as Headmistress on 6.5.2008. The Manager appointed smt.K.u.Rukiya Beevi as the Headmistress, it is not in dispute that Smt .V.B.Sajitha, who instituted the writ petition from which this appeal arises, is senior to smt.K.u.Rukiya Beevi. The Assistant Educational Officer refused to approve the appointment of Smt.K.u.Rukiya Beevi as Headmistress as she was junior to smt.V.B.Sajitha. That decision of the AEO dated 20.5.2008 is Ext.P2 in the writ petition. Manager filed a revision against that decision of the AEO. Going by the revisional order, the Additional Director of Public Instruction had noticed that the reason for the AEO's refusal to approve the appointment of smt.K.u.Rukiya Beevi was the preferential claim of Smt.V.B.Sajitha on ground of seniority. However, the Add!.DPI, in his wisdom, did not choose to issue notice or afford opportunity of hearing to Smt.V.B.Sajitha in relation to that revision. By that time, it appears that Government had issued a Government order on 29.9.2008 stating that having examined the matter in detail, Government are "pleased to grant Minority Status" to the educational institution. Addl.DPl's decision comes on 27.1.2009 stating that the approval of appointment of Smt.K.U.Rukiya Beevi as Headmistress with effect from 7.5.2008 onwards deserves consideration in view of the minority status of the establishment. This decision was challenged by smt.V.B.sajitha in the writ petition.

3. Besides other issues, arguments were advanced before the learned single Judge on the question as to whether the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kurian Lizv v. State of Kerala [2006(4) KLT 264 (FB)] governed the field while the Manager appointed Smt.K.U.Rukiya Beevi with effect from 7.5.2008. The controversy raised was based on the sequencing of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra)-, that rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Manager. S.S.H.S.School v. Liiin [2007 (3) KLT 663] and the later Full Bench decision of this Court in Bel si v. Corporate Management of Latin Catholic Schoolsr201QC2>) KLT 134(FB)]. In its nutshell, the issue projected before the learned single Judge was as to whether the declaration of law by the Full Bench in Kurian Lizy stood watered down by the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Secretary. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T.Jose & others [(2007) 1 SCC 386] as noted in Lijin and whether the later declaration of the Full Bench, to the contrary, in Bel si overruling Lijin's case on that point saves those appointments made by minority educational institutions between 25.7.2007, the date of pronouncement of Lijin and 18.3.2010, the date on which the Full Bench delivered its decision in Belsi. The learned single Judge found against the argument on behalf of the Manager that all appointments made between the dates of the decisions in Lijin's case and Belsi's case must be deemed to have been done validly. Making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Asst. Commissioner. income Tax. Raikot v.Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. f2