JUDGMENT P. K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. In this Original Petition, the petitioner prays for issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P-4 order and also for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from retrenching the petitioner from service as High School Assistant, Natural Science in the school under the management of the 4threspondent in implementation of Ext, P-4 order. 2. In order to appreciate the contention of the respective parties it is necessary to state essential particulars relating to the appointment and service of the petitioner and 5th respondent as High School Assistants in Natural Science. The 5threspondent was appointed on 24th October 1980 in S. S. N. High School under the management of 4th respondent as High School Assistant in Natural Science in a leave vacancy. Thereafter, she was again appointed on 20th July 1991 in a leave vacancy of a High School Assistant in Physics. Again she was appointed on 22nd December 1982 in a leave vacancy. The petitioner had broken periods of service under the management of the 4th respondent for the period from 11thJanuary 1982 to 31st March 1982 and 20th December 1982 to 12th March 1983.The 5th respondent was appointed in a regular vacancy on 24th June 1983.During the academic year 198.4-85 the third respondent did not sanction the post in Natural Science and consequently the 5th respondent was thrown out on 15thJuly 1985. She filed a revision petition before the Government against this and the Government passed order on 10th April 1987 sanctioning the post of Natural Science. Another teacher by name Soudha Beevi took long leave in the mean while up to 30th September 1990, which was later extended by one year. 5threspondent was appointed in that vacancy on 20th January 1986. The 3rdrespondent approved the appointment on 12th June 1986. 3. In the staff fixation order for the year 1986-87 an additional post of Natural Science High School Assistant was sanctioned. The petitioner was appointed to that post. The 5th respondent raised heir preferential claim by filing a complaint before the 3rd respondent. According to the 5th respondent, she should have been appointed that vacancy in preference to the petitioner. The matter ultimately came before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P1 order dated 13th December 1988. It was ordered in Ext. The 5th respondent raised heir preferential claim by filing a complaint before the 3rd respondent. According to the 5th respondent, she should have been appointed that vacancy in preference to the petitioner. The matter ultimately came before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P1 order dated 13th December 1988. It was ordered in Ext. P1 that when Smt. Soudha Beevi would be returning from leave in 1990 the 5th respondent who is working against the leave vacancy would be ousted. The matter was taken before the Government and the Government passed Ext. P-4 order holding that when the leave vacancy in which the 5th respondent is working ceases, she should necessarily be accommodated in any of the posts in the school [as provided in G.O. (Ms.) No. 155/ 88/G. Edn., dated 11th October 1988] subject to minimum subject requirements at that time and the junior most then available will have to be retrenched following also the conditions regarding minimum subject requirements. It was also found that the view taken by 2nd respondent that since5th respondent is working against leave vacancy, she should be ousted when the teacher returns from leave and joins duty is not correct. 4. In this Original Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order Ext. P-1. Learned counsel submitted that since the 5th respondent is the teacher who was appointed in the leave vacancy of Soudha Beevi, 5th respondent is liable to be retrenched when Soudha Beevi returns after leave. I am unable to accept this contention. It is not disputed that the 5th respondent was appointed first and the petitioner was appointed later. 5. The scope of R.51 and 55 of Chapter XIV-A of KER same up for the consideration of a Full Bench in Vijayan v. Deputy Director ( 1988 (2) KLT 413 (F.B)). The Full Bench said: "The rule thus incorporates the well recognised principle of service law 'last come first go'. R.51, having regard to the context obviously deals with a situation where the post continues and only the vacancy in that post terminates for one reason or the other. R.55 provides that the number of permanent teachers each category in the staff list of the school shall not exceed the aggregate sanctioned posts in that category. R.51, having regard to the context obviously deals with a situation where the post continues and only the vacancy in that post terminates for one reason or the other. R.55 provides that the number of permanent teachers each category in the staff list of the school shall not exceed the aggregate sanctioned posts in that category. If there are persons in excess of the sanctioned strength of posts of a particular category, the rule provides that the excess hands should be retrenched by throwing out the junior most hands. In other words, R.55 also incorporates he general principle of service law of 'last come first go'." The Full Bench overruled the decision of the Single Judge in P. V. George and another v. D.E.O., Alwaye ( 1984 KLT 933 ) which took a different view. 6. Applying the principle laid down by the Full Bench to the facts of this case it has to be held that the petitioner, who was appointed later than the 5threspondent is liable to go first unless if no other teacher junior to the petitioner is available for retrenchment subject to minimum subject requirement. Foregoing discussion would show that there is no merit in the Original Petition. Accordingly I dismiss the Original Petition. However, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs.