Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioners who were qualified to be appointed as Lower Primary School Assistants (LPS as) were appointed in various leave vacancies by the 7th respondent in his school. The first petitioner was appointed on various dates as per Ext. P1, P2 and P3 orders. The above appointment was not approved by the 5th respondent as per Ext. P5 order. The appointment of the first petitioner as per Exts. P2 and P3 were rejected by the 6th respondent as per Ext. P6 and P7 orders. Ext. P8 is the order in appeal by the 4th respondent which confirmed Ext. P6. 2. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as per Ext. P9 order. The above appointment was not approved by the 6th respondent as per Ext. P10 order. Ext. P11 is the order in appeal by the 4th respondent, which confirmed Ext. P10. The revision filed by the 2nd petitioner against Ext. P11 was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P12. The appointment of the 3rd petitioner as per Ext. P13 order was rejected by not granting approval by the 3rd respondent as per Ext. P14. Appeal filed against Ext. P14 was rejected as per Ext. P5 along with the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner. 3. Ext. P15 is the appointment order of the 4th petitioner. Approval was not granted by the 6th respondent to the above appointment as per Ext. P16 order. Ext. P17 is the order in appeal filed against Ext. P16 by the 4th respondent. 4. 5th petitioner was appointed as per Ext. P18 order. By Ext. P19, the 6th respondent declined approval. Appeal filed by the 5th petitioner against Ext. P19 was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext. P20. 5. First petitioner took up the matter in revision before the 1st respondent by Ext. P21. Ext. P22 is the petition submitted by all the petitioners before the Government. Exts. P21 and 22 were rejected by the 1 st respondent as per Ext. P23. The reason stated in all these orders is that there were senior claimants under R.51A of Chap. XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, who were appointed formerly by the Manager as UPS As (Upper Primary School assistants). Exts. P21 and 22 were rejected by the 1 st respondent as per Ext. P23. The reason stated in all these orders is that there were senior claimants under R.51A of Chap. XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, who were appointed formerly by the Manager as UPS As (Upper Primary School assistants). Therefore, according to the Educational Authorities and the Government, these teachers who were appointed as U.P.S. Assistants had got preferential claim for appointment as L.P.S.As (Lower Primary School assistants) to which posts the petitioners were appointed. Unless these claimants were appointed by the Manager, the Petitioners' appointments cannot be approved. 6. The simple argument against the reasoning of the respondents in these impugned orders is that the senior claimants were appointed as UPS Assistants and that petitioners were appointed as LPS Assistants and that both posts are not similar but different in nature and duties. The question is no longer res integra by virtue of various decisions of this Court. 7. The earlier decision dealing with the above question is the ruling reported in GopalakrishnanNairv. District Educational Officer, (1988 (1) KLT 644). The above case dealt with the claims of non-teaching staff to be appointed as Peon in the School. The petitioner in that case was formerly appointed as Clerk in the School When a vacancy of Peon arose in the School, he was appointed to the post. When the Educational Authority refused to approve the above appointment, the petitioner claimed the benefit of R.51A Chap. XIVA K.E.R. read along with R.7 of Chap. XXIV-B K.E.R. When the matter came up before this Court, this Court held that if a person was first appointed as Clerk and thereafter relieved for want of vacancy, he is entitled to preference in the matter of appointment in future vacancy of Clerk only and not to that of any other post. 8. The same question came up again in the ruling reported in Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 359). In the above case, a teacher was appointed as U.P.S.A. for different periods. When a regular vacancy arose, the Manager appointed the above teacher. 8. The same question came up again in the ruling reported in Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 359). In the above case, a teacher was appointed as U.P.S.A. for different periods. When a regular vacancy arose, the Manager appointed the above teacher. The appointment was not approved by the Educational Authority on the ground that there were other H. S. As who are entitled to preference under R.51 A. A Division Bench of this Court approved the view expressed mGopalakrishnan Nair 's Case ((1988(1) KLT 644) and held that it is only Upper Primary School Assistants who have acquired preferential right under R.51- A that can claim protection for appointment to the said post and not High School Assistants who have acquired preferential right under R.51-A. 9. Later a Division Bench of this Court considered the question as to whether these two decisions require reconsideration as they go against the tenure and nature of R.51 A. That decision was reported in Saramma v. D.E.O., Kothamangalam (1991 (2) KLT 883). In that case, two persons who were appointment as High School Assistant (Hindi) and Clerk respectively, claimed appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher under R.51- A. This Court held that, post of High School Assistant thindi) and Lower Grade Hindi Teacher are not identical in nature and therefore, the rejection of the claims of these teachers was justified. The claim of the Clerk, a non-teaching staff for appointment as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, a teaching staff was rightly turned down. 10. 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 Chapters XXIII and xxxi ofK.E.R. Qualifications prescribed for these posts are S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. 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 T.T.C. 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 Chapter 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. They did not have T.T.C. 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 Chapter 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 S.S.L.C. and pass in T.T.C. 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. 11. 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 further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are S. S.L.C. and T.T.C. holders and at the time of their appointment there were several claimants under R.51A of Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. who were awaiting appointments under the Management. But all these claimants were formerly appointed as U.P.S. Assistants and not as L.P.S. Assistants. Thus it cannot be said that there were valid claimants of L.P.S. Assistants under R.51 -A of the K.E.R. at the time of the appointment of the petitioners. As already indicated, U.P.S. Assistants have no preferential claim for appointment as L.P.S. Assistants under R.51-A of the K.E.R. over persons who were appointed as L.P.S. Assistants. 12. Taking into consideration all these facts in that perspective, the stand taken by the Educational Authorities and the Government in the impugned orders are unsustainable. Therefore, I quash Exts. P4 to P8, P10 to P12, P14, P16, P17, P19, P20 and P23. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to pass necessary orders approving appointments of the petitioners for the periods during which they were appointed by the Manager. Orders in this respect must be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P4 to P8, P10 to P12, P14, P16, P17, P19, P20 and P23. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to pass necessary orders approving appointments of the petitioners for the periods during which they were appointed by the Manager. Orders in this respect must be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.