being a UPSA, cannot thus be shifted and there is no provision in the KER which allows such a shifting. Even the amended rules do not provide for any such shifting. 9. Shri Sandesh Raja, learned Govt. Pleader submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in Mary George v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 912), which was followed in Rajimol v. Asst. Educational Officer ( : 2004 (2) KLT 899), it can be seen that the post of LPSA and UPSA are different in nature and duties. Therefore, there cannot be any arrangement by which a UPSA can be shifted to the post of LPSA. It is therefore pointed out that the step taken by the Manager cannot be justified, as the Manager is bound to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules and there is no absolute power for the Manager to provide for such a shifting. 10. Certain factual aspects will have to be gone into to examine the question raised herein. Admittedly, the vacancy in the L.P. section arose on 1.6.2009 consequent on the retirement of Smt. K.V. Devi, LPSA. The Manager claims that the shifting was done consequent on the retirement of Smt. Devi which was effected and approved by the Staff Fixation Order for the year 2009-2010. Ext. P5 is the copy of the Staff Fixation Order. It only shows in the Appendix the number of teaching staff including Headmaster, UPS Assistants and LPS Assistants as well as language and specialist teachers. In the category of LPSA four posts have been sanctioned. Ext. P5 does not show any approval for the shifting of the fourth respondent as LPSA as contended by the Manager. The controversy herein arose when the Manager issued a direction as per Ext. P3 produced in W.P.(C) No. 27985/2010. The same is dated 29.9.2010, much after the staff fixation order. The said proceedings directs the Headmistress to have the academic work in U.P. section exclusively by trained graduates and academic work of TTC/TCH should be utilized in L.P. section. Accordingly, the Headmistress is directed to instruct the fourth respondent to do the teaching work in L.P. section. The said letter alone generated the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Manager on Ext. P5 Staff Fixation Order as a justification for shifting, is not correct. Evidently, even in Ext. P3 produced in W.P.(C) No. 27985/2010 the Manager has not taken the stand that shifting is approved by the department.

- 11. The other document relied upon by the Manager is Ext. P6, stated to be a seniority list. Evidently, going by the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the same has not been approved by the Asst Educational Officer and not submitted to the office for approval till date. Therefore, the same cannot have any legs to stand in deciding the controversy herein.

12. In Ext. P7, the Asst. Educational Officer took the view that the post of LPSA and UPSA are different categories and therefore in the retirement vacancy which arose in L.P. Section, a UPSA cannot be shifted and there is no provision for that also. While considering the appeal filed by the Manager, in Ext. P8 the District Educational Officer also held that the arguments raised by the Manager is not sustainable. But, the District Educational Officer recognized the right of the Manager on the plea that shifting was made prior to 9.9.2009, the date of amendment of the rules by Ext. P4 produced in W.P.(C) No. 25667/2010. Actually the said amendment is not one concerning the shifting of UPSA to L.P. Section and vice-versa. The amendment was made to Rule 4A of Chapter XXXI of K.E.R. Rule 4A only provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, the Educational Officer shall be competent to approve appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications, provided they have any of the