The provisions of the Kerala Education Rules govern appointments, and while familial claims exist, they do not override statutory norms for educational appointments.

1. The petitioner who is a member of a tharwad by name Sooryachira Variam, challenges the action of the first respondent, who is ExOfficio Manager of S.V.S.M.U.P. School, Pudussery, belonging to the said tharwad, in appointing the fourth respondent as U.P.S.A. in the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of one Mr. P.K. Jayaram senior U.P.S.A. of that school on 31-3-2004, overlooking the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner relies mostly on Ext. P1, which is an order passed by the Munsiff Court, Palakkad, in the final decree application in a suit for partition between the members of the family. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 has. attained finality and the same binds all the members of the Sooryachira Variam which constitutes the educational agency of the school and are entitled to manage the school. According to the petitioner, under Ext. P1 the school building, compound, the furniture of the school and the right to manage the school is retained as a common property of the members of the family. According to the petitioner, provisions have been made by the court in Para.15 of Ext. P1 regarding the school and she highlights Clause.10 of Para.15 which quoted as follows

"It shall be the exclusive privilege of the Manager to appoint teachers and peons when vacancy arises with the approval of the Education authorities and qualified members of the family including their wives : or husbands and children shall have first preference to be appointed as teacher. A stranger shall be appointed only if a qualified family member is not an applicant for the post".

2. According to the petitioner, after Ext. P1 was passed, the Management of the School was being conducted strictly in terms of Para.15 of Ext. P1 till 19-2-1992 when further disputes arose regarding the management of the School. The petitioner submits that in the wake of the disputes, the Government under Ext. P2 order took over the management of the school and the first respondent - D.E.O. was appointed as Ex. Officio Manager for a period of 5 years till such time as the disputes regarding the managership of the school is settled. After the expiry of five years, when the Government noticed that the disputes were not settled, the Government passed Ext. P3 order continuing the appointment of the D.E.O. as Ex. Officio Manager until further orders. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 order, particularly Clause.10 of Para.15 of Ext. P1 shall bind the D.E.O. the first respondent also. To show that the petitioner is a member of Sooryachira Variam, she relies on Ext. P4 family meeting notice and also on the list of members of Sooryachira Variam prepared by the D.E.O. According to the petitioner, from amongst the members of this family she was the only person who applied for appointment to the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of Sri. P. K. Jayaram. Ext. P5 is a copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 also applied for the same post. But, according to the petitioner, they are not members of the Sooryachira Variam family and she has a preferential claim above respondents 3 and 4 and, therefore, she filed Ext. P6 representation before the first respondent seeking issuance of appointment order. The petitioner conceded that respondents 3 and 4 had earlier worked in the L.P. School of the family in leave vacancies and for that reason they are having claims under R.51A of Chap.14A of K.E.R. But the 51A claims of these respondents, according to th