A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. The petitioner in the writ petition is working as a full time menial (hereinafter referred to as FTM) in the school under the management of the 3rd respondent. She was appointed as a FTM with effect from 06.12.1999. The appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the Educational authorities as well. The promotion post for FTM’s in the school is that of a Peon/Office Assistant. The promotions are to be effected on the basis of seniority and, in the absence of any candidate for promotion, the post can be filled up by direct recruitment. It is stated that in the seniority list of FTM’s maintained in the school, the petitioner is currently ranked 2nd.

2. It would appear that a vacancy to the post of Peon/Office Assistant arose, consequent to the retirement of one James in September 2014. Instead of seeking the willingness of persons, such as the petitioner, who were in the feeder category for promotion, the 3rd respondent Manager proceeded to fill up the vacancy through direct recruitment of the 6th respondent. The said appointment of the 6th respondent was also approved by the 2nd respondent after noting that all the 66 FTM’s working under the different schools under the management of the 3rd respondent had given letters permanently relinquishing their claim for promotion to the post of Peon/Office Assistant. Ext.P6 is the duly approved order of appointment issued to the 6th respondent, which is sought to be impugned in the writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein the sequence of events leading to the approval to the appointment of the 6th respondent as Peon/Office Assistant with effect from 01.10.2014 is narrated. In particular, it is pointed out that the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered since all the 66 FTM’s working under the different schools under the management of the 3rd respondent, including the petitioner herein, had given letters permanently relinquishing their claim for promotion to the post of Peon/Office Assistant.

4. I have heard Sri. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents and Sri. V.A. Muhammed, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Manager and learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents.

5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that, for the reasons that are stated hereinafter, the writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P6 order must necessarily succeed. As per Explanation (1) to Note (2) to Rule 1 in Chapter XXIV (A) of the KER, the post of Peon/Office Attendant in an aided school is to be filled by promotion from, inter-alia, FTM’s. Further, Rule 7 in Chapter XXIV B of the KER makes the provisions of Chapter XIV A in relation to matters regarding, inter-alia, appointment and promotion of teaching staff, mutatis mutandis applicable to non-teaching staff also. Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the KER deals with appointment of Headmasters, and the relevant portion of the Rule, for the purposes of the instant case, reads as follows:-

“44. (1) the appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared and maintained under clauses (a) and (b) as the case may be of rule 34. The manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the rules laid down in the matter. A teacher if he is aggrieved by such appointment will have the right of appeal to the Department.

[Note:- Whenever the Manager intends to appoint a person as Headmaster other than the senior claimant, the manager shall obtain a written consent from such senior claimant renouncing his claim permanently. Such consent shall have the approval of the Educational Officer concerned.]”

6. It is evident, therefore, that whenever the Manager of an aided school intends to appoint a person, other than the senior claimant, to the promotion post, then he is obliged to obtain