Antony Dominic, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.25385/12 who is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by her.

2. The appellant was appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the 5th respondent school for the period from 11/8/04 to 30/6/08 and the appointment was approved by the departmental authorities. Subsequently, a retirement vacancy arose in the school in the category of UPSA w.e.f. 1/6/11 and the appellant was appointed to that vacancy in recognition of her claim under Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER. However, by Ext.P1 order, the Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve her appointment on the ground that the 7th respondent is a senior claimant who had approved service during the period from 1/6/09 to 31/3/10.

3. The DEO and the Deputy Director of Education rejected the appeal and revision filed by the appellant as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P6 orders. Subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P10 order requiring the Manager to re-appoint the 7th respondent and that order was confirmed by the Government in Ext.P12 order rejecting the revision filed by the appellant. It is in the above circumstances, the writ petition was filed by the appellant contending that by the time the vacancy of UPSA arose w.e.f. 1/6/11, she had acquired TTC on 21/8/10 and that therefore, in view of the amendment to Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER effected in 2005, she was entitled to be appointed to that vacancy. However, interpreting Rule 51A as amended in 2005, learned single Judge held the 7th respondent to be the rightful claimant and the impugned orders were also upheld. It is this judgment which is called in question before us.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel appearing for the 6th and 7th respondents.

5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to be appointed against the vacancy of UPSA which arose on 1/6/11 in preference to the 7th respondent. Rule 51A occurring in Chapter XIV A KER which was inserted in the statute book in 1966 provided that qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 of 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. The scope of this provision was considered and explained in various judgments. In Anilkumarv. Beena (2000 (1) KLT 286), a Division Bench of this Court considered the purport of this Rule and held thus in para 10 to 13;

“10. The object and purpose of the rule is to restore to those qualified persons relieved of the appointment, the post they lost for want of vacancies. Rule was enacted to restore to him the same type of post which he would have occupied but for the termination of vacancy. Qualification obtained by a teacher to teach a particular subject and the consequent experience gathered by him by holding the post and the approval obtained from the department would give rise to those persons a preference for holding identical posts in the school on a future occasion. A teacher who obtained such a preference for appointment under Rule 51A cannot go on acquiring various other qualifications subsequent to his relief from the school and stake claim for a post which he never held in the school on previous occasions. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, that would lead to an anomalous situation and would defeat the claims of various qualified persons relieved from other posts. Note 1 to Rule 51A amply makes it clear that if there are more than one qualified persons preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. Rule never emphasises that preference will