1. The rival claims of the petitioner and the 6th respondent for appointment to the post of HSA(Malayalam) in the 5th respondent's school against a short term vacancy from 5.6.2007 to 27.9.2007 and thereafter on regular basis from 20.6.2008 are to be resolved in this Writ Petition. The facts, in succinct, relevant for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid issue are as hereunder:-

The petitioner was appointed as HSA(Malayalam) under the 5th respondent's school for the period from 27.10.1993 to 14.1.1994 as per Ext.P1. Later, she was appointed as such in a short term vacancy from 1.1.1998 to 30.3.1998 as per Ext.P2 and then, as per Ext.P3, from 2.6.1998 to 29.8.1998. Again she had rendered service as HSA (Malayalam) against short term leave vacancies in different spells, such as, from 15.9.1998 to 30.11.1998, 10.1.2000 to 10.3.2000, 12.9.2001 to 24.1.2002 and from 6.10.2003 to 5.12.2003. Admittedly, all these appointments were approved by the first respondent. The 6th respondent was appointed as a UPSA in the 5th respondent's school on 6.6.1994. Even at the time of initial appointment as HSA (Malayalam), the petitioner was having all the prescribed qualifications for such appointment. In the case of the 6th respondent, he secured B.A Degree in Malayalam in June, 2007 and also possessed B.Ed Degree in Social Studies. Admittedly, he did not possess training qualification in Malayalam. While so, a short term vacancy of HSA(Malayalam) occurred in the 5th respondent's school from 5.6.2007 to 27.9.2007. Obviously, at that appointed time, both the petitioner and the 6th respondent were working in the post of UPSA in the 5th respondent's school. The 5th respondent-Manager appointed the petitioner in the said leave vacancy of HSA(Malayalam). In terms of the statutory mandate, the said order of appointment was forwarded to the first respondent for approval. However, as per Ext.P4, the first respondent declined to approve the said appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the 6th respondent is the rightful senior claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'KER') against the said vacancy. Ext.P4 was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the second respondent. That was rejected as per Ext.P5. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Director of Public Instruction. As per Ext.P6, the said revision petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P6, the 6th respondent took up the matter before the Government. Aggrieved by the delay in its disposal, the 6th respondent approached this court by filing WP(C) No.20680 of 2008. That Writ Petition was disposed of by this court as per Ext.P7 judgment with a direction to the Government to dispose of the revision petition after hearing the petitioner herein and the Manager as well. Thereupon, the Government heard all the parties in terms of Ext.P7 judgment and Ext.P8 order dated 2.2.2009 was passed. It was held therein that both the petitioner and the 6th respondent were claimants under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER as regards the vacancy occurred on 5.6.2007 and being the senior most 43 claimant, the 6th respondent was entitled to get appointment as HSA(Malayalam) in the leave vacancy from 5.6.2007 to 27.9.2009 and thereafter in the regular vacancy from 20.6.2008. It is in the said circumstances, that this Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 on various grounds.

2. The core contention of the petitioner is that while issuing Ext.P8, Government have overlooked the crucial fact that at the time of occurrence of a vacancy in the post of HSA(Malayalam) for the first time after the commencement of service by the petitioner and the 6th respondent under the 5th respondent viz., on 27.10.1993, the 6th respondent was not qualified for appointment as HAS (Malayalam). He acquired B.A Degree in Malayalam only in June, 2007. The petitioner was fully qualified for a