IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a protected teacher to a promotion, the principles of seniority, estoppel, and the 'sit back theory' in determining appointment disputes.

The petitioner was appointed as a Headmistress of the 6th respondent School as evident from Ext.P2 on 30.06.2014. When the appointment was sent for approval, it was declined by the Educational Authorities as per Ext.P4 order stating that the petitioner is a protected teacher and she is not entitled to be appointed as Headmistress. Thereafter, the said order was confirmed by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P4(b). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government, which was kept pending. In the meantime, aggrieved by the rejection of approval of petitioner's appointment, the Manager had also independently invoked the statutory remedies. Finally, when the matter reached the hands of the 1st respondent, there were three revision petitions before the 1st respondent. The first one at the instance of the Manager. The second one at the instance of the petitioner and the third revision petition by the 5th respondent the aggrieved teacher, who claimed that despite the rejection of approval of petitioner's appointment as Headmistress, there were no direction to appoint her instead of the petitioner. It appears that the 1st respondent has taken up all the three revision petitions and disposed the revision petitions filed by the Manager and the 5th respondent as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.12.2017, leaving the revision petition filed by the petitioner to become redundant. It is challenging Ext.P1 Government Order and the orders by which the appointment was refused to be approved, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition.

2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which in paragraph No.2 it is stated that the petitioner being a protected teacher is not entitled for promotion as Headmistress. In so far as, the non-consideration of the revision filed by the petitioner is concerned, the 1st respondent has stated in paragraph No.7, which reads as follows:

“Exhibit P1 order was issued based on the revision petitions submitted by the petitioner and the Manager of the School under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA KER and Government has no power to review an order already issued under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA KER.

However detailed report was called for from the Director of Public Instructions on Exhibit P7 review petition submitted by the petitioner. It was in the meantime that the petitioner has moved before the Honourable Court. It is submitted that Government had already examined the revision petition of the petitioner and had issued a speaking order as per Exhibit P1 after examining the argument notes submitted by both the petitioner and the Manager. Hence no separate orders for each revision petition is required and the argument is baseless.”

3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the Manager was not justified in appointing the petitioner as the Headmistress. It is also further contended that, the revision filed by the petitioner was within time and it was liable to be entertained in terms of Chapter XIV A Rule 92. The 5th respondent further contended that in the decision in Manager, Mar Sleeba UPS v. State of Kerala [1990 (1) KLT 626], the petitioner has no preferential claim for appointment as Headmistress.

4. The petitioner, hence, filed a reply affidavit in response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is specifically pointed out in paragraph No.6 that the petitioner was never treated as a protected teacher under any point of time. Further, as per Ext.P11 seniority list, the petitioner was ranked senior to that of the 5th respondent and she had raised no objection to the same.

5. I have heard Sri.Mohan Jacob George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri.Siju Kamlasanan for the 5th respondent and Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi for the 6th respondent. I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar.

6. Ext.