Subsequently acquiring qualification for the post is of no help to appellant.

V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.

The appellant herein challenges the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.11257 of 1995, 13099 of 1995, 15441 of 1995 and 3818 of 1997. Out of these petitions, we are concerned only with the Writ Petition No.15441 of 1995 which was filed by the present appellant/petitioner. In her petition, she had challenged the order passed by the Joint Director, dated 31.7.1995 whereby her claim for promotion as a Headmistress in the Middle School was turned down. We are not really concerned with the earlier history of litigation, because the Writ Appeal can be disposed of only on the basis of the contentions raised by the appellant and the facts relating to her.

2. It is an admitted position that the appellant was working as Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher right from 1964 in the concerned school. A vacancy for the Middle School Headmaster/Headmistress arose in the month of June, 1993 for that post. However, later on, i.e., in February, 1994, the qualifications required for the post were upgraded, in the sense that hitherto though a non-B.Ed., candidate could be appointed as a Headmaster or Headmistress of the school, after February, 1994, it was only a person who was having the qualification of B.Ed. after graduation could be appointed as Headmistress or Headmaster, as the case may be. The appellant was not appointed though she staked her claim for that post which was filled up on 2.2.1994; instead, one outsider came to be appointed and this was challenged by way of appeal which was filed on 12.2.1994. The appeal was rejected on 25.10.1994. Therefore, a Writ Petition came to be filed wherein this Court directed the appellant to file a

second appeal, perhaps to the Joint Director which accordingly was filed. That appeal has also been dismissed by the Joint Director, taking the view that on the date when the post was filled up, the appellant did not have the necessary qualifications, as she was not B.Ed., degree holder and that she acquired that qualification for the first time in March 1994 only.

3. The learned Single Judge also took the same view and pointed out that on the date when the vacancy was filled up on 2.2.1994, the appellant was not duly qualified for occupying the post of Headmistress. The learned Single Judge took into account the situation that the appellant acquired the qualification of B.Ed., only in the year 1994 in the month of March and as such, on the date when the post was filled up, she was not qualified.

4. It is this judgment which has been challenged before us. The learned counsel for the appellant, Ms.K.Suguna very vehemently contended before us, the fact that the appellant was the seniormost teacher in the school and was also adequately qualified, if not on 2.2.1994 but on 31.7.1995 when the appeal was dismissed by the Joint Director should have been taken into consideration. In short, she contends that since the appeal was decided on 31.7.1995, on that date atleast she was having the necessary qualification and as such, she should have been promoted to the post of Headmistress. It is additionally contended that J.Deivakadatcham who was eventually appointed from open market also did not have the necessary qualification of experience of five years and as such, there was no other person available for being promoted to the post of Headmaster, excepting the appellant. It is pointed out that even that appointment was struck down by the Joint Director.

5. What would be the relevant date would be a question in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has taken a view that on the date when the post was filled up, i.e., on 2.2.1994, it is an admitted position that the appellant did not have the necessary qualification of B.Ed., though she had appeared for the examination in the month of May, 1993, since the results of the examination were not declared till March, 1994. Under the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be a