Promotion eligibility requires the satisfaction of qualifications at the time of vacancy, with amendments to rules applied retrospectively when appropriate.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The additional 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.7178 of 2019 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. By Ext.P1 order dated 01.06.2016, the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A., in the school managed by the 4^th respondent, with effect from the date of that order. Approval to that appointment was not given by the Educational Department due to the pendency of the writ petitions pertaining to the appointment of protected teachers in the ratio 1:1, before this Court. On 10.07.2018, 3 posts of H.S.A, such as H.S.A (Social Science), H.S.A (Physical Science) and H.S.A (English) were also sanctioned to the School, vide Ext.P8 staff fixation order. The 1^st respondent contends that as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy of H.S.A (Social Science), i.e., on 10.07.2018, she was the only U.P.S.A., qualified to be promoted and appointed as H.S.A (Social Science). She had the K.TET qualification and also all other qualifications for getting promotion as H.S.A. She therefore claimed that she was an eligible claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959, (‘KER’ in short). The 1^st respondent submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 21.06.2018 to the Manager for getting promotion as H.S.A (Social Science). Since the 4^th respondent Manager, did not give a positive response, the 1^st respondent submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 10.01.2019 to the 3^rd respondent District Educational Officer. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to fill up the vacancy of H.S.A (Social Science) sanctioned as per Ext.P8 staff fixation order dated 10.07.2018, by promoting the 1^st respondent forthwith and to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the District Educational Officer from approving the appointment of H.S.A (Social Science), if any person, other than the 1^st respondent is appointed by the Manager.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Manager appointed the appellant-additional 4^th respondent as H.S.A (Social Science) and hence the 1^st respondent impleaded her as an additional respondent in the writ petition.

4. The 3^rd respondent District Educational Officer filed a counter affidavit dated 04.05.2021 in the writ petition, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Ext.R2(a) document. The 4^th respondent Manager filed a counter affidavit dated 28.07.2019, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and producing therewith Ext.R3(a) document. The appellant/additional 4^th respondent also filed a counter affidavit dated 09.06.2025, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(e) documents.

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on perusing the materials on record, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as per the impugned judgment dated 16.07.2025, directing respondents 3 and 4 herein to promote the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner as H.S.A (Social Science) with effect from 03.06.2019, the date on which the appellant was promoted as H.S.A. Consequently, the appointment of the appellant as H.S.A. with effect from that date is ordered to be set aside. Respondents 2 to 4 were directed to approve and regularise the service of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner with effect from 03.06.2019 to 20.12.2021 as H.S.A. The app