IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 394 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.20376/2007 Dated 2/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- LIJA P.V.,'JYOTHI' KEEZHUR P.O., IRITTY. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THALASSERY. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER IRITTY. 5. C.LISHA, VAZHUNNAVAR'S U.P.SCHOOL KEEZHUR, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. MANAGER, VAZHUNNAVAR'S U.P.SCHOOL KEEZHUR, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 394 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. She was appointed as L.P.S.A in the school of the 6th respondent on 19.6.2006. A vacancy of L.P.S.A arose in the school during the beginning of the academic year 2006-07. One Mr.Prasanth Kumar who was originally appointed as L.P.S.A and who was working as U.P.S.A., was shifted from the U.P Section to that vacancy and it was filled up. In the resultant vacancy in the post of U.P.S.A., the 5th respondent herein was appointed with effect from 6.6.2006. The appellant submits, the said shifting of Mr.Prasanth Kumar to the post of L.P.S.A was illegal. The 5th respondent, who is a B.Ed Degree holder without T.T.C could not have been appointed as L.P.S.A. If the above arrangement is approved, the result will be that the appellant will become the juniormost L.P.S.A in the school. On reduction of one vacancy, she will face retrenchment. In the above context, the appellant challenged the shifting of WA 394/2008 2 the vacancy and appointment of the 5th respondent as U.P.S.A. The challenge raised by her was upheld by the D.E.O and the D.P.I., as evident from Exts.P3 and P4 orders. On the representation filed by the 5th respondent, the said decisions were set aside by the Government, as evident from Ext.P5 communication dated 13.6.2007. The writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P5. The learned single Judge noticed that Mr.Prasanth Kumar was originally appointed as L.P.S.A. In exigencies of service, he was being posted in the U.P. Section, to take classes there. So, there is nothing wrong with his posting back as L.P.S.A and appointing the 5th respondent in the resultant vacancy, it was held. In the result, the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant attacks the said decision in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the D.E.O has correctly held against the shifting of Mr. Prasanth Kumar to the post of L.P.S.A. The said order was rightly upheld by the D.P.I also. But, the Government wrongly interfered with the same, it is submitted. 3. Going by Rule 34(b) of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R., we notice that L.P.S.A and U.P.S.A belong to one single category for the purpose of seniority, promotion, retrenchment etc. Of course, after 8.6.2000, only T.T.C holders or persons having equivalent qualifications could have been WA 394/2008 3 appointed as L.P.S.A. But, the persons appointed earlier can continue and work as L.P.S.A. So, there is nothing wrong with the posting of Mr.Prasanth Kumar as L.P.S.A and the appointment of the 5th respondent in the resultant vacancy. In the result the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/