Sreedharan, J. - (1.)THESE appeals arise from the judgment in O. P. 8613/1992. Respondents 1 and 4 in O. P. 8613/1992 arc the appellants in W. A. 175/1993. 5th respondent in that writ petition has preferred W. A. 184/1993. Issues that arise for consideration in these appeals are the same.
(2.)THE writ petitioner is working as a Lower Primary school Assistant in the school run by the first respondent. Her claim for promotion as Headmistress was not accepted by the Manager. Educational authorities requested the Manager, first respondent in the writ petition, to promote the rightful claimant, the writ petitioner, to the post of Headmistress without any delay. Since that was not complied with by the Manager, writ petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to implement the above orders and to give petitioner regular promotion to the post of Headmistress with effect from 7-10-1991. Learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment, declared that the writ petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Headmistress in preference to the 4th respondent with effect from the last date of the Account Test (Lower) examination held in june, 1991.
When a permanent vacancy of Headmistress arose in the school run by the first respondent, no one among the teaching staff was qualified to be promoted to that post,since no teacher had acquired the Account test (Lower) qualification. 4th respondent in the writ petition was the senior-most teacher. Therefore, she was given temporary promotion as per R. 45c of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Clause (2) of that Rule mandates that the teacher temporarily promoted to the post of Headmaster should be replaced as soon as possible by the member of the service who becomes entitled to the promotion as per the rules. Writ petitioner passed Account Te

T (Lower)ExaminaTion in The TesT conducTed in June, 1991, as evidenced by ExT. P1 cerTificaTe daTed 7-10-1991. On Thus becoming qualified, 41h respondenT in The wriT peTiTion, iT is alleged, had To be replaced by The wriT peTiTioner. She represenTed To The Manager for geTTing promoTion as HeadmisTress of The School. NeiTher The Manager nor The AssisTanT EducaTional Officer Took any sTep To redress The claims of The wriT peTiTioner. Therefore, she moved The DisTricT educaTional Officer. As There was delay in passing orders by The DisTricT educaTior al Officer, wriT peTiTioner moved This CourT by filing O. P. 5038/1992. This CourT direcTed The Third respondenT To considerwriT peTiTioner's represenTaTion and To pass final order wiThin one monTh. In The meanTime, 41h respondenT in The wriT peTiTion moved GovernmenT for geTTing exempTion from TesT qualificaTion, so ThaT she can conTinue as HeadmisTress. Her requesT was 'Turned down by The GovernmenT, as evidenced by ExT. P5 communicaTion daTed 19-5-1992. In spiTe of ThaT, The DisTricT EducaTional Officer, purporTing To be in compliance wiTh The direcTion given by This CourT in O. P. 5j33/1992, passed exT. P6 order daTed 8-6-1992 rejecTing wriT peTiTioner's claim for promoTion as headmisTress. ThaT order was quesTioned in The wriT peTiTion.

(3.)FIRST respondent in the writ petition, the Manager of the school, filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that 4th respondent has 20 years of teaching experience and completed 50 years of age on 30-1-1992. Writ petitioner is the junior-most teacher, having 4 years of service only. When the vacancy to the post of Headmistress arose on 1-6-1990, 4th respondent was the senior-most hand in the school and no member of the teaching staff had the test qualification. 4th respondent is exempted from test qualification by virtue of completion of 50 years of age. Government directed the Deputy director to promote the writ petitioner as Headmistress of the school without hearing the 4th respondent. Writ petitioner being the junior-most hand in me school, has to vacate the post as a result of the staff fixation order consequent on the fall in the strength of students. Ext. P5 order is not valid.
H respondent filed a counter affidavit stating tHat sHe Has put in more tHan 12 years of service in tHe scHool and tHat sHe is a graduate witH B. Ed, qualification. Writ petitioner is tHe junior-most teacHer in tHe scHool. During tHe academic year 1992-93, tHere was fall in divisions. In tHat event, writ petitioner, being tHe junior-most, is likely to be retrencHed. Date of birtH of 4tH respondent is 30-1-1942 and tHerefore sHe attained tHe age of 50 years on 30-1-1991. Consequently sHe is entitled to permanent exemption from acquiring tHe obligatory test qualification. 4tH respondent Having attained tHe age of 50 years on 30-1-1991, long prior to tHe date on wHicH writ petitioner became qualified, is entitled to continue as Headmistress.

;