4. In W.P.(C) No. 27985/2010 the teacher challenges Ext. P10 communication issued by the Manager dated 27.8.2010 directing the Headmistress to implement the orders of the Manager. This order is issued relying upon the interim order in W.P.(C) No. 25667/2010. It is the contention of the petitioner therein that she was appointed as a UPSA as per Ext. P1 order and she is about to retire on 31.3.2012. The posts of LPSA and UPSA are different in nature and duties. Ext. P2 is the copy of the document showing the class charges of the teachers working in the school from 1998 to 2009 to show that she is working in the U.P. section throughout. Ext. P3 therein is the direction issued by the Manager on 29.9.2009 to the Headmistress to instruct the petitioner to do the teaching work in the L.P. section. It is pointed out that there is no power for the Manager to shift her to the L.P. Section. 5. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education in W.P.(C) No. 25667/2010 reveals the following facts. From 1.4.2009 onwards due to retirement of Smt. K.V. Devi, one LPSA post and due to the retirement of Shri P.V. Balakrishnan, one post of UPS A became vacant in the school. Against the retirement vacancy of LPS A, the Manager appointed one Shri T.V. Muhammed Ameen, a B.Ed. holder which cannot be approved, as the vacancy arose in L.P. section. The fourth respondent was appointed in the school as UPSA on 2.6.1982 which was approved by the Asst. Educational Officer. Going by the Govt. Order dated 11.10.2004 the post of LPSA and UPSA are different and the nature of duties are also different and they are different categories. The Manager has no power to shift the fourth respondent to LP section from U.P. section with effect from 1.6.2009. On enquiry, it is seen that she was not actually shifted with effect from 1.6.2009 and was continuing in the U.P. section during the last so many years including 2009-2010. The Manager has not given any application before the Educational authorities for shifting the fourth respondent from U.P. section to L.P. section. The matter of shifting is not shown in the Staff Fixation Order 2009-2010. The post of LPSA and UPSA are different in nature, in duties and are different categories as held by this Court. Ext. P6 seniority list was not approved by the Asst. Educational Officer, nor submitted to that office for approval. 6. Heard learned counsel for the Manager Shri George Poonthottam, Shri V.T. Madhavanunni, learned counsel for the Teacher and Shri Sandesh Raja, learned Govt. Pleader. 7. Learned counsel for the Manager submitted that actually four posts of LPSA are available in the school. The fourth respondent is not a B.Ed. holder. Therefore, she was liable to be shifted to the L.P. section in terms of the staff fixation order. The retirement vacancy arose in the L.P. section. It is argued that there is no prohibition under the Act and Rules for the Manager to exercise such a power. Learned counsel further submitted that even going by the approved seniority list, etc. the seniority of the fourth respondent is not affected. The new appointee being a B.Ed. holder, can be appointed only as a UPSA. It is pointed out that the amendment of the rules in the year 2000 to Chapter XXXI providing for qualifications of the LPSAs and UPSAs require a shifting of persons not having the B.Ed. qualification and the action of the Manager cannot be said to be illegal. 8. Shri Madhavanunni, learned counsel appearing for the Teacher pointed out that the fourth respondent was working as UPSA. The Manager has only issued a direction to the Headmistress as per Ext. P3 produced in W.P.(C) No. 27985/2010 which has no statutory backing. The fourth respondent