IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 454 of 2008 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4180/2008 Dated 05/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT /PETITIONER : P.K.CHANDRIKA, U.P.S.A., S.N.V.U.P. SCHOOL, MOOLAMKUDAM, P.O.MATTATHURKUNNU, VIA. KODAKARA, PIN-680 684, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS : 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, S.N.V.U.P.SCHOOL, MOOLAMKUDAM, P.O.MATTATHURKUNNU, VIA, KODAKARA, PIN-680 684, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 5. SMT.M.MINI, HEADMISTRESS, S.N.V. U.P.SCHOOL, MOOLAMKUDAM, P.O.MATTATHURKUNNU, VIA, KODAKARA, PIN-680 684, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 454 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, This writ appeal is filed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4180 of 2008 dated 5th of February, 2008. 2. The writ petition was filed by one of the teachers of the respondent School inter alia questioning the legality or otherwise of the appointment of the fifth respondent as Headmistress of the School by the second respondent Manager. In the writ petition, it was contended that the fifth respondent was the junior most teacher and she is not having continuous service equal to half the service of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she should have been appointed as Headmistress of the School. 3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court questioning the appointment of the fifth respondent as Headmistress of the respondent School by the second respondent Manager. Aggrieved by the reasonings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant is not in a position to demonstrate before us that the appointment made by the second respondent appointing the fifth respondent as Headmistress of the School is either contrary to the Kerala Education Rules or Regulation. In fact, after going through the letter of appointment and also the Kerala Education Rules, we are of the firm opinion that W.A. 454/2008. 2 the appointment made by the second respondent appointing the fifth respondent as the Headmistress of the School is in consonance with the Kerala Education Rules. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected on a reasoning other than what has been said by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition. Accordingly, we reject the writ appeal. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.