training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala. The latter limb of the rule is replaced by the words "provided they have the training qualification stipulated in the said sub-rule", by the present amendment. In the Explanatory Note, it is mentioned that the amendment is required, since certain Managers shifted B.Ed. holders working as UPSA, as LPSA to accommodate another B.Ed. holder in the U.P. section. The amendment is only to remedy the said mischief. What is noted in the Explanatory Note is the shifting of a B.Ed. holder working as UPSA, as LPSA. Therefore, the basis for the findings of the District Educational Officer is evidently unsustainable, as the amendment had nothing to do with the questions raised herein. The said order was therefore set aside in Ext. P1. 13. The scope of the amendment introduced as per Ext. P3 of Rules 3 and 4 of Chapter XXXI is only that Rule 3 permits appointments of graduates with B.Ed. as UPSA and Rule 4 shows that as far as LPSAs are concerned, persons with SSLC or its equivalent or a pass in Pre-degree and a pass in TTC could be appointed as LPSA. Going by Rule 3, persons having SSLC or its equivalent or a pass in Pre-degree examination conducted by any of the Universities in Kerala, etc. and having TTC/TCH qualification, can also be appointed as UPSA. Therefore, it is not a case where after the coming into force of the amendment, persons working as UPSA and not having B.Ed. lose their right to continue as UPSA which warrants a shifting to the LP cadre. Such is not the intention of the rules. Therefore, it is not legally permissible for the Manager to contend that the fourth respondent is liable to be shifted as LPSA when a retirement vacancy arose on 1.6.2009. 14. The posts of UPSA and LPSA are different in category and the nature of duties are different. This question was examined in Mary George's case (1999 (3) KLT 912). The issue was examined while considering the right of a UPSA for appointment as LPSA under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. This Court held that both these categories of teachers are not one and the same. They are different in nature and duties. The findings contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 in that regard are reproduced below: Applying these principles it has to be examined as to whether a post of L.P.S. Assistant and U.P.S. Assistant are two different posts or posts of similar nature. According to the petitioners, posts of L.P.S. Assistant and U.P.S. Assistant are two different and distinct categories as per Chapter XXIII and XXXI of K.E.R. Qualifications prescribed for these posts are SSLC and TTC. The senior claimants about whom reference had been made by the Educational Authorities are persons appointed as U.P.S. Assistants with B.Ed. qualification. They did not have TTC qualification. Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R. deals with fixation of strength of teachers in Departmental and Aided Schools. R. 5 of the above Chapters deals with staff of the Upper Primary Schools and Lower Primary Schools. The above Rule mentions separately the posts of U.P.S. Assistants and L.P.S. Assistants. Chapter XXXI of the K.E.R. deals with the qualifications of Private School Teachers. R.3 of the above Chapter mentions qualifications prescribed for U.P.S. Assistants. R. 4 specifies the qualifications of L.P.S. Assistants. In both these posts, pass in SSLC and pass in TTC examination are the qualifications prescribed. No B.Ed. qualification has been prescribed for appointment as either U.P.S. Assistant or L.P.S. Assistant. L.P.S. Assistants are teaching students in L.P. School and U.P.S. Assistants are teaching students in the U.P. Schools. From these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that both these categories of teachers are not one and the same. They are different in nature and duties. The defence set up in the counter affidavit is that the Government have clarified in various orders that trained graduates could also be appointed in the vacancy of L.P.S. Assistants. It was