JUDGMENT : N. Nagaresh, J. W.P.(C) No.8670/2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash the original of Exts.P3 and P5 orders.” 2. W.P.(C) No.18319/2024 has been filed by the additional 4 th respondent seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion as Headmaster from 01.06.2023 onwards with all consequential benefits. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 6 th respondent-Manager to implement Exts.P6 and P7 by appointing the petitioner as Headmaster by promotion with effect from 01.06.2023 onwards.” 3. The parties and exhibits are described in this judgment as they are referred to and marked in W.P.(C) No.8670/2023, for convenience. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8670/2023 states that she is at present working as Teacher-in-Charge in the 3 rd respondent’s School. A retirement vacancy of Headmaster arose in the School on 31.08.2016. The petitioner would submit that she has passed KER in the month of January, 2016 and Account Test in June, 2016. The petitioner is therefore qualified to be appointed as Headmaster in the School. 5. Though the petitioner approached the Assistant Educational Officer, the AEO rejected approval of appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should have 12 years teaching experience as per the amended Government Order dated 09.07.2018. The petitioner states that the vacancy of Headmaster in the School arose in the year 2016 and the amendment came in the year 2018. Therefore, the crucial date for consideration of qualification is the date of occurrence of vacancy. 6. The petitioner therefore filed a Revision Petition before the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent rejected the same without taking into consideration the fact that the amendment rules have no retrospective operation. The petitioner would submit that as on the crucial date, no other person is eligible to be promoted as Headmaster. 7. The additional 4 th respondent filed W.P.(C) No.18319/2024. The additional 4 th respondent submitted that he got approved continuous service as UPST from 01.06.2011 onwards. He was appointed against a retirement vacancy which arose on 01.04.2011. The vacancy of Headmaster arose in the School when one Smt.Nancy Samuel, Headmistress voluntarily retired from service on 31.08.2016. 7. The additional 4 th respondent filed W.P.(C) No.18319/2024. The additional 4 th respondent submitted that he got approved continuous service as UPST from 01.06.2011 onwards. He was appointed against a retirement vacancy which arose on 01.04.2011. The vacancy of Headmaster arose in the School when one Smt.Nancy Samuel, Headmistress voluntarily retired from service on 31.08.2016. None of the UPSTs in the School were qualified for appointment by promotion as Headmaster on 01.09.2016. The additional 4 th respondent, being the seniormost UPST, was therefore made Teacher-in-Charge. 8. However, the petitioner filed a complaint on a mistaken notion that the petitioner is fully qualified for the post of Headmaster and the seniormost UPST, and the additional 4 th respondent is not qualified for appointment as Headmaster. The additional 4 th respondent submitted that the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, as per letter dated 08.08.2022, has reported to the DGE that the additional 4 th respondent is the rightful claimant for appointing as Teacher-in-Charge on 01.09.2016 in the absence of qualified hands for appointment by promotion as Headmaster on 01.09.2016, the date of occurrence of vacancy. 9. The additional 4 th respondent further submitted that the Assistant Educational Officer, Karunagappally, as per his letter dated 05.09.2023, has directed the Manager to appoint the additional 4 th respondent as Headmaster forthwith as the Government has rejected the request of the petitioner. The Manager has not implemented the order. The additional 4 th respondent would submit that consequential orders have not been passed as W.P.(C) No.8670/2023 is pending. 10. Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O.(Rt.) No.1612/2023 dated 28.02.2023, the Government have rejected the request of the petitioner to approve her appointment as Headmaster. The reason for rejection of her request for approval was that there is stipulation in the Rules that 12 years teaching service is necessary for appointment as Headmaster in a UP School. Rule 18(1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules prescribes that the Head Teacher shall be a person having a minimum of 12 years of teaching experience and possessing Departmental Tests and Test in KE Act and Rules. The petitioner has not completed 12 years of teaching service as she commenced her service only from 02.06.2014. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4 th respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing the departmental respondents. The petitioner has not completed 12 years of teaching service as she commenced her service only from 02.06.2014. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4 th respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing the departmental respondents. 12. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner was appointed as UPSA only in the year 2014. The petitioner will complete the requisite 12 years service as UPST only in the year 2026 so as to become eligible for appointment as Headmaster. 13. The additional 4 th respondent, on the other hand, was appointed as UPST on 01.06.2011. The additional 4 th respondent completed the 12 years of continuous service as UPSA in the year 2023. He was test qualified in the year 2022. The respondents have directed the Manager to promote the additional 4 th respondent as Headmaster in Exts.P5 to P7. It is to be noted that when the vacancy of Headmaster arose on 01.09.2016, the petitioner had no 12 years service in order to make her eligible for the post. The additional 4 th respondent became test qualified in the year 2022 and completed the 12 years requisite experience in the year 2023. Therefore, undoubtedly, the additional 4 th respondent will have a superior claim over the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Headmaster. 14. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vacancy of Headmaster arose on 01.09.2016 and the petitioner satisfied the qualifications prescribed under Rule 45A Chapter XIVA of KER. The qualification of 12 years experience is prescribed under the RTE Rules. As on the date of occurrence of vacancy, none was qualified. If no fully qualified hand is available for appointment as HM, temporary promotion should be given to the seniormost Teacher. Hence, the petitioner was appointed. Furthermore, Ext.P6 amendment came into effect only on 09.07.2018. These aspects were not considered by the Government. 15. As on the date of occurrence of vacancy, none was qualified. If no fully qualified hand is available for appointment as HM, temporary promotion should be given to the seniormost Teacher. Hence, the petitioner was appointed. Furthermore, Ext.P6 amendment came into effect only on 09.07.2018. These aspects were not considered by the Government. 15. Ext.P6 order would show that the Government have noticed that there is incongruity between KER and RTE Rules, 2011 regarding the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Headmaster in Aided Primary Schools and thereupon the Government amended Rule 45B(1) Chapter XIVA of KER providing that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 45 and 45A, a minimum of 12 years of teaching experience, Account Test (Lower) with a pass in the test in KE Act and KE Rules shall be obligatory qualification to the Teachers for promotion as Headmasters of LP and UP Schools. 16. In Ext.P7 order dated 09.02.2024 (in W.P.(C) No.18319/2024), the Additional Director of General Education has noted that there were no eligible Teachers for grant of temporary promotion and hence the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18319/2024 being the seniormost is eligible for appointment. Therefore, following Rule 45C(6) of Chapter XIVA of KER, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18319/2024 was directed to be appointed as Teacher-in-Charge with effect from 01.06.2011 and to grant regular promotion with effect from the date on which he became eligible. I do not find any illegality in Ext.P7. 17. Furthermore, a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in Padmanabhan Nair v. Deputy Director [ 1991 (1) KLT 337 ] has held that if none was qualified when the vacancy arose, the person who first becomes qualified thereafter is eligible to be considered for appointment. If no candidate is available, the seniormost Teacher should be put in charge as Headmaster and should be replaced as soon as a qualified person is available. For all the afore reasons, W.P.(C) No.8670/2023 is dismissed. W.P.(C) No.18319/2024 is disposed of directing the 6 th respondent-Manager to implement Exts.P6 and P7 by appointing the additional 4 th respondent (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18319 of 2024) as Headmaster by promotion with effect from 01.06.2023. The additional 4 th respondent will be entitled to all consequential benefits.