K.S. Radhakrishan, J.

Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a qualified Upper Primary School Assistant (Science) retrenched from service for want of vacancy could claim the benefit of rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules for appointment in the post of a language teacher i.e. U.P.S.A. (Hindi) Learned single judge accepted the plea on the ground that the post of UPS A (Science) and the language teacher (UPSA-Hindi) carried the same scale of pay, in the same cadre, and included in the same seniority list. Appellant, aggrieved by the said finding, has come up in appeal.

2. We refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. Petitioner was appointed as UPSA (Science) in the St. Mary's U.P. School on 15.7.1992. Her appointment was approved and later she was retrenched from the school for want of vacancy during 1995-96 staff fixation. She was again appointed in a leave vacancy as UPSA (Science) from 12.9.1995 to 13.12.1995, from 6.1.1997 to 26.3.1997 and from 4.6.1997 to 1.9.1997. All the appointments were approved. Accordingly petitioner acquired a right under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. for future appointment in the school. Petitioner, after being retrenched from the service for want of vacancy, passed Rashtra Bhash Visharad Degree Examination of Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachara Sabha in August, 1998. She therefore became fully qualified for getting appointment to the post of language teacher ie.U.P.S.A. (Hindi). A retirement vacancy of a language teacher in Hindi arose in the school from 1.6.1999.

3. Manager took steps to appoint fresh hand in the post of language teacher in Hindi, in the vacancy which arose with effect from 1.6.1999. Petitioner filed a representation before the Assistant Educational Officer claiming appointment to the post of U.P.S. A. (Hindi) as a rule 51A claimant stating that she is fully qualified for appointment in the post. Request of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer stating that she is not entitled to get appointment to the post of language teacher in Hindi since her claim is only for appointment in the post of UPS A (Science). Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned singly judge allowed the Writ Petition taking the view that Manager is bound to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy of language teacher in Hindi since UPS A (Hindi) and UPS A (Science) carried the same scale of pay in the same cadre and included in the same seniority list and held the petitioner has got claim under Rule 51-A Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R.

5. Counsel for the addl. fourth respondent (appellant) Sri. T.M. Abdul Latiff submitted that petitioner has no claim for appointment to the post of UPSA (Hindi), since she never held the post of a language teacher. According to counsel, she can claim appointment only to the post of UPSA (Science) and not as a language teacher, since there is no identity of post.

6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner (first respondent herein) Sri. M.R. Rajendran Nair on the other hand submitted that management is bound to appoint the petitioner in the post of language teacher in Hindi since she is a Rule 51A claimant. Counsel submitted UPSA (Science) and UPSA (Hindi) are having same scale of pay and grade and included in the same seniority list. Counsel submitted on acquisition of the required qualification for teaching Hindi she is entitled to get appointment to the post of language teacher. In other words, counsel submitted in order to claim the benefit of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. a teacher need not hold an identical post earlier, but need only acquire the qualification to hold any post.

7. In order to examine the rival contentions, it is necessary to consider the scope and ambit of rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. in the background of various other provisions in the Kerala Education Rules. The strength of the teaching staff in Upper Primar