The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointments of LPSAs and UPSAs are distinct, and senior claimants appointed as UPSAs do not have preferential claim for appointment as LPSAs under R.51A of the Kerala Education Rules.

C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioners who were qualified to be appointed as Lower Primary School Assistants (LPS as) were appointed in various leave vacancies by the 7th respondent in his school. The first petitioner was appointed on various dates as per Ext. P1, P2 and P3 orders. The above appointment was not approved by the 5th respondent as per Ext. P5 order. The appointment of the first petitioner as per Exts. P2 and P3 were rejected by the 6th respondent as per Ext. P6 and P7 orders. Ext. P8 is the order in appeal by the 4th respondent which confirmed Ext. P6.

2. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as per Ext. P9 order. The above appointment was not approved by the 6th respondent as per Ext. P10 order. Ext. P11 is the order in appeal by the 4th respondent, which confirmed Ext. P10. The revision filed by the 2nd petitioner against Ext. P11 was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P12. The appointment of the 3rd petitioner as per Ext. P13 order was rejected by not granting approval by the 3rd respondent as per Ext. P14. Appeal filed against Ext. P14 was rejected as per Ext. P5 along with the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner.

3. Ext. P15 is the appointment order of the 4th petitioner. Approval was not granted by the 6th respondent to the above appointment as per Ext. P16 order. Ext. P17 is the order in appeal filed against Ext. P16 by the 4th respondent.

4. 5th petitioner was appointed as per Ext. P18 order. By Ext. P19, the 6th respondent declined approval. Appeal filed by the 5th petitioner against Ext. P19 was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext. P20.

5. First petitioner took up the matter in revision before the 1st respondent by Ext. P21. Ext. P22 is the petition submitted by all the petitioners before the Government. Exts. P21 and 22 were rejected by the 1 st respondent as per Ext. P23. The reason stated in all these orders is that there were senior claimants under R.51A of Chap. XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, who were appointed formerly by the Manager as UPS As (Upper Primary School assistants). Therefore, according to the Educational Authorities and the Government, these teachers who were appointed as U.P.S. Assistants had got preferential claim for appointment as L.P.S.As (Lower Primary School assistants) to which posts the petitioners were appointed. Unless these claimants were appointed by the Manager, the Petitioners' appointments cannot be approved.

6. The simple argument against the reasoning of the respondents in these impugned orders is that the senior claimants were appointed as UPS Assistants and that petitioners were appointed as LPS Assistants and that both posts are not similar but different in nature and duties. The question is no longer res integra by virtue of various decisions of this Court.

7. The earlier decision dealing with the above question is the ruling reported in GopalakrishnanNairv. District Educational Officer, (1988 (1) KLT 644). The above case dealt with the claims of non-teaching staff to be appointed as Peon in the School. The petitioner in that case was formerly appointed as Clerk in the School When a vacancy of Peon arose in the School, he was appointed to the post. When the Educational Authority refused to approve the above appointment, the petitioner claimed the benefit of R.51A Chap. XIVA K.E.R. read along with R.7 of Chap. XXIV-B K.E.R. When the matter came up before this Court, this Court held that if a person was first appointed as Clerk and thereafter relieved for want of vacancy, he is entitled to preference in the matter of appointment in future vacancy of Clerk only and not to that of any other post.

8. The same question came up again in the ruling reported in Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 359). In the above case, a teacher was appointed as U.P.S.A. for different periods. When a regular vacancy arose, the Manager appointed the above teacher. The appointment was not approved by the Educational Authority on the ground that there were other H. S.