IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions are to be made from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of the vacancy, and the interpretation of Rule 43 and Rule 51A is based on the relevant qualifications and the time of occurrence of the vacancy.

JUDGMENT :

W.P.(C) No.39920/2017 has been filed challenging the order of the District Educational Officer, declining approval of promotion of the petitioner as HSA (English) and declaring the entitlement of the 6th respondent therein for promotion. W.P.(C) No.37899/2017 has been filed by the said 6th respondent, seeking implementation of the order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.39920/2017 is referred to as the petitioner and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37899/2017 is referred to as the sixth respondent. Rule 43 and Rule 51A, hereinafter referred to are, even if not specifically mentioned, those contained in Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959.

3. The petitioner was appointed as UPSA (English) in a regular vacancy at Samooham High School, North Paravur, from 26.11.2011 onwards. The appointment was duly approved by the authorities. On 03.06.2013, the petitioner was promoted as HSA (English) in a retirement vacancy. However, the approval was not granted by the authorities. On the revision petition by the Manager before the second respondent Director of Public Instructions, the District Educational Officer(DEO) was directed to re-consider the issue. The DEO held that the promotion of the petitioner was effected overlooking the claim of the sixth respondent, who is a claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. Accordingly, the approval was rejected. The order was affirmed by the Deputy Director. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27544/2017. This Court interfered with the orders and directed the DEO to pass fresh orders. Thereafter, he passed Ext.P13 order holding that the sixth respondent is the rightful claimant for promotion under Rule 51A and Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA KER. The approval of appointment of the petitioner was thus rejected. The petitioner challenges the order, while the sixth respondent seeks implementation of the same.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.A.Fayaz and Sri.N.K.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and also Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. Before proceeding to discuss the issues involved, it is necessary to place on record the appointment details of the sixth respondent, who, the authorities held to be having claim in precedence to the petitioner. The 6th respondent while working as UPSA was promoted as HSA (English), from 16.07.2003 to 30.06.2005. Thereafter she was reverted as UPSA. She stakes claim for the vacancy of HSA (English), as a claimant under Rule 43 and Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA K.E.R.

6. The points to be answered are :-

(i) Is the sixth respondent entitled for promotion as a Rule 43 claimant?

(ii) Is the sixth respondent a Rule 51A claimant? Chapter XIVA Rule 43 provides for promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade, according to seniority. Chapter XXXI Rule 2(x)(i)&(ii) stipulates the qualification for a HSA(English) thus :-

“(i) A Degree in English language and literature; or a Degree in Functional English/Communicative English and

(ii) B.Ed/B.T./L.T. with English as optional subject, conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala.”

Therefore, an HSA(English) is to acquire, B.Ed/BT/LT with English as optional subject. It is only such qualified hands in the lower grade that are entitled for promotion. It is not in dispute that, while the petitioner possesses the required qualification of B.Ed in English, the sixth respondent does not possess the same.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the sixth respondent is that, in view of the earlier promotion granted to her as HSA (English) in the leave vacancy, she became qualified in terms of Rule 43.

8. It is to be noted that, when the earlier promotion of the 6th respondent was effected in the leave vacancy, Chapter XXI Rule 2(x)(iii), as it then existed provided that, in the absence of candidates which possess B.Ed in English, candidates with B.Ed in any other subject could be cons