JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The, question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is one of considerable importance as far as Aided School Teachers are concerned. A specialist teacher was also qualified for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant. Then a vacancy of Lower Primary School Assistant arose in the school and the specialist teacher was appointed in that post and in the specialist post that fell vacant one who was fully qualified for the post was appointed and both the appointments were approved. Sometime later due to reduction in the number of divisions the specialist teacher who got appointment as a Primary School Assistant became surplus. Then the question is whether the qualified teacher working as specialist teacher can be relieved and the Lower Primary School Assistant who became surplus can be again posted as specialist teacher in that post. 2. The 1st respondent while working as a full-time sewing teacher in the M.T.L.P. School, Kanakappalam was deputed for T.T.C. Course. In the above training vacancy the petitioner was appointed as specialist teacher (sewing). When the 1st respondent returned after training, the petitioner was relieved on 31st March 1965. On 1st June 1966 the first respondent was confirmed as sewing teacher. Then in 1967-68 a regular vacancy of L.P.S.A. arose in the school and the 1st respondent was appointed as L.P.S.A. and the appointment of the 1st respondent in that substantive vacancy was approved by the department. In the. vacancy of the specialist sewing teacher that arose, the petitioner was appointed on 2nd November 1967. That appointment also was duly approved. Some years later in the year 1972-73 for want of strength one class division was abolished and the 1st respondent who was the juniormost L.P.S.A. was thrown out. 3. It seems that the 1st respondent complained to the department and the 2nd respondent District Educational Officer, Kanjirappally passed Ext. P-1 order, dated 27th September 1972 directing that the 1st respondent be reinstated in service as sewing teacher by retrenching the petitioner. Against Ext. P-1 order the petitioner filed Ext. P-2 revision petition before the 5th respondent, Stat of Kerala and the 5th respondent by Ext. P-3 order, dated 18th August 1973 ordered that the 1st respondent will have to be reverted to her original post of sewing teacher and the petitioner will have to be retrenched from service. Against Ext. P-1 order the petitioner filed Ext. P-2 revision petition before the 5th respondent, Stat of Kerala and the 5th respondent by Ext. P-3 order, dated 18th August 1973 ordered that the 1st respondent will have to be reverted to her original post of sewing teacher and the petitioner will have to be retrenched from service. There is a confusion in the Original Petition whether the school in question is a L.P. School or a U.P. School. What is seen from Ext. P-3 order is that the post which the 1st respondent was holding was that of a U.P. School Assistant. In that case, the school can be only a U.P. School. But from the description of the parties in the Original Petition it is seen that the school in question is a L.P. School and that the 1st respondent is a L.P. School Assistant. I am at a loss to understand as to how this confusion has arisen. Whether it is a L.P. School or a U.P. School, the position will be the same and for the purpose of deciding this case it is not necessary to ascertain whether the school in question is a U.P. School or a L.P. School. 4. It is seen from the averments in the Original Petition that from the year 1973-74 onwards the 1st respondent is working as a L.P.S.A. because there arose a vacancy of L.P.S.A. in the school and in that vacancy the 1st respondent was appointed. So, the only question is whether the retrenchment of the. petitioner in the year 1972-73 and the consequent posting of the 1st respondent as sewing teacher was justified. 5. The contention of the counsel for the 1st respondent is that the 1st respondent has a lien to the post of sewing teacher and hence Exts. P-1 and P-3 are perfectly valid. The contentions raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent are also on the same lines. 5. The contention of the counsel for the 1st respondent is that the 1st respondent has a lien to the post of sewing teacher and hence Exts. P-1 and P-3 are perfectly valid. The contentions raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent are also on the same lines. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that as the 1st respondent was confirmed as sewing teacher before her appointment as L.P.S.A. she continues to have a lien as sewing teacher even after her appointment as L.P.S.A. In para 5 it is also contended that the 1st respondent had a legal right for appointment in her original post of sewing teacher so long as the post of sewing teacher was not abolished and she was senior to the petitioner in that category. 6. The 1st respondent was retrenched in the year 1972-73 because the 1st respondent was the juniormost L.P.S.A. Rule 51 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 reads: "51. When a vacancy in any category of post terminates necessitating the relief of a teacher, senior hands shall ordinarily be retained in preference to junior hands with due regard to the requirements of subjects so far as Secondary classes are concerned". So, the retrenchment of the 1st respondent from the post of L.P.S.A. was fully justified by the above rule. Once retrenched, the right to preference for appointment to future vacancies in the school is governed by rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Rule 51-A reads as follows: "51-A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency". Rights of Aided School Teachers are to be governed by the provisions in the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Rights of Aided School Teachers are to be governed by the provisions in the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. As per rule 51, Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, the 1st respondent being the juniormost L.P.S.A. cannot but suffer a retrenchment from the post of L.P.S.A. as she has no post in the school to continue as an L.P.S.A. Once retrenched, the rights of a qualified teacher like the 1st respondent for further appointment in the school are to be governed by rule 51-A. Rule 51-A does not contemplate the relief of any other qualified teacher in the staff of the school for the purpose of creating a vacancy for absorbing the 1st respondent who is only another qualified teacher thrown out for want of post. Except the right to preference for appointment to future vacancies, no other right is conferred on a qualified thrown out teacher by the Kerala Education Rules. If that be so, the moment the 1st respondent ceased to be a specialist teacher and accepted the appointment as an L.P.S.A. the 1st respondent ceased to have any right over the specialist post in which the petitioner was appointed and that appointment approved by the department. The petitioner being qualified for the specialist post has every right to continue, in that post till that post is abolished and the right of the petitioner to continue in her post cannot in any way depend upon the abolition of the post of L.P.S.A. in which the 1st respondent was appointed though the 1st respondent got a posting of L.P.S.A. when she was working as a specialist teacher. The fact that the 1st respondent had confirmation as specialist teacher cannot in any way alter the position. The contentions of the 1st respondent that she had every right to be reverted to her original post of sewing teacher cannot also stand. Firstly, the posting of the 1st respondent as an L.P.S.A. is not one of promotion as both the posts of L.P.S.A. and specialist sewing teacher are in the same scale. Secondly, the rules in the Kerala Education Rules do not provide for any reversion to the original post if the post in which an Aided School Teacher works ceases to exist. Only the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules can govern the rights of these teachers. 7. Secondly, the rules in the Kerala Education Rules do not provide for any reversion to the original post if the post in which an Aided School Teacher works ceases to exist. Only the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules can govern the rights of these teachers. 7. In the result, Exts. P-1 and P-3 are quashed and this Original Petition is allowed, No costs.