The writ petitions concern a common issue arising between the parties and therefore they are disposed of by a common judgment. In W.P. (C) No.25667/2010 the petitioner is the Manager of the school and in W.P. (C) No.27985/2010 the petitioner is working as a UPSA in the school, who is the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.25667/2010.

2. The main question raised in the writ petition filed by the Manager is the right of the Manager to shift a teacher working in the U.P. section as U.P.S.A. to the L.P. section. It is argued that in the absence of a prohibition in the Kerala Education Act and Rules, the Manager can do so in exercise of the right of management of a school. The circumstances leading to the dispute, as pleaded in W.P.(C) No.25667/2010, are the following:

3. The main challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur whereby the appeal filed by the fourth respondent teacher was allowed and she is further allowed to continue in the post of U.P.S.A. A vacancy in the post of L.P.S.A. arose in the L.P. Section with effect from 1.6.2009 consequent on the retirement of Smt .K.V. Devi. She was a TCH holder. According to the Manager, till the amendment of the rules as per Ext.P3 in the year 2000, teachers who possessed higher qualification were also allowed to take classes in the L.P. section, which cannot be done after the amendment of the rules. The said position has been reiterated by a recent amendment produced as Ext.P4. It is stated that the Manager decided to shift the fourth respondent who is also a TCH holder, to the L.P. section consequent on the retirement of Smt.K.V. Devi. Ext.P5 is the copy of the staff fixation order for the year 2009-2010 which according to the Manager, approved the shifting. Ext.P6 is the copy of the seniority list of the teachers of the school. Based on the representation made by the fourth respondent, the Asst. Educational Officer by Ext.P7 held that the shifting is not permissible and therefore she being a UPSA, should be allowed to continue in that post. This was challenged by the Manager before the District Educational Officer, who passed Ext.P8 order which was in turn challenged by the fourth respondent before the Deputy Director of Education, who passed Ext.P1 order.

4. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner Manager is that the appeal before the Deputy Director of Education was not competent. What is mainly argued is that going by the qualification of the fourth respondent, she can be only accommodated as an LPSA. Four posts are allowable in the L.P. section and there are only three teachers and the Manager will have to make arrangements to conduct the classes.

5. In W.P.(C) No.27985/2010 the teacher challenges Ext.P10 communication issued by the Manager dated 27.8.2010 directing the Headmistress to implement the orders of the Manager. This order is issued relying upon the interim order in W.P.(C) No.25667/2010. It is the contention of the petitioner therein that she was appointed as a UPSA as per Ext.P1 order and she is about to retire on 31.3.2012. The posts of LPSA and UPSA are different in nature and duties. Ext.P2 is the copy of the document showing the class charges of the teachers working in the school from 1998 to 2009 to show that she is working in the U.P. section throughout. Ext.P3 therein is the direction issued by the Manager on 29.9.2009 to the Headmistress to instruct the petitioner to do the teaching work in the L.P. section. It is pointed out that there is no power for the Manager to shift her to the L.P. Section.

6. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education in W.P.(C) No.25667/2010 reveals the following facts. From 1.4.2009 onwards due to retirement of Smt.K.V. Devi, one LPSA post and due to the retirement of Shri P.V. Balakrishnan, one post of UPSA became vacant in the school. Against the retirement vacancy of LPSA, the Manager appointed one Shri T.V. Muhammed Ameen,