Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellant was the sixth respondent in the Writ petition. She was appointed as Upper primary School Assistant (for short, “U.P.S.A.”) in the fifth respondent’s High School, in a maternity leave vacancy from 06.06.2002 to 17.10.2002. While so, a regular vacancy arose in the cadre of U.P.S.A. on 02.09.2002, in which the first respondent/Writ petitioner was appointed. The point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the appellant should have been accommodated in the regular vacancy which arose on 02.09.2002 or a fresh hand like the first respondent could have been inducted, as was done in this case. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. As mentioned earlier, the appellant was appointed as U.P.S.A. in a maternity leave vacancy from 06.06.2002 to 17.10.2002. The said appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer (for short, ‘D.E.O.’) on 12.06.2003. While so, a regular vacancy in the cadre of U.P.S.A. arose, as a result of promotion of one of the U.P.S.A’s. on 02.09.2002. The first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in that vacancy. The D.E.O., by order dated 20.05.2003, approved the said appointment of the f