Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J The appellant is the writ petitioner who could not succeed in challenging Ext.P8 Government Order whereby she was identified as the teacher to be retrenched during the academic year 2004-2005, consequent on abolition of one post. Ext.P4 is the Staff Fixation Order for the academic year 2004-2005. As per that order, post sanctioned are as follows:- Physical Science - 5 Natural Science - 4 Mathematics - 7 Social Studies - 6 English - 7 ------- TOTAL 29 ===== 2. This was as against 30 against 30 posts available in the previous Year Viz. 2003-2004. The posts sanctioned during that year were as follows:- Physical Science – 5 Natural Science – 4 Mathematics – 7 Social Studies – 7 English – 7 ---------- TOTAL 30 ======== 3. But the existing strength of physical Science teachers was ‘6’ as against ‘5’ posts required and that for Social Studies was also ‘6’ as against ‘7’ posts. In other subjects there was neither dearth nor excess. 4. During the current year Viz. 2004-2005, one post was reduced in the Social Studies. Necessarily, one teacher had to be retrenched. In Social Studies, on the commencement of the current academic year, there were six posts and six teachers. In Physical Science, there were six teachers as against five posts. Consequently, going by the subject ratio ordered in Ext. R5 (a), the Department in Ext.P5 identified the excess hand in physical science as the incumbent to be retrenched. The junior most in Physical Science is admittedly the appellant/writ petitioner. It was in the above circumstances, in Ext. P8, she was identified as the teacher to be retrenched. This fact was taken note of by the learned Single Judge. 5. Going by the contention of the appellant that while identifying the excess hand, the minimum requirement for satisfying the subjects alone need be counted; and the teacher to be identified shall be the latest entrant in service irrespective of the subject. A teacher in English is the junior most hand thus to be identified as excess, it is submitted. 6. We are unable to accept this contention because so far as English is concerned, not only in the current academic year but also in the previous academic year, there were seven posts duly sanctioned, against which there were only seven incumbents working. 6. We are unable to accept this contention because so far as English is concerned, not only in the current academic year but also in the previous academic year, there were seven posts duly sanctioned, against which there were only seven incumbents working. So in the light of the break-up in the subject Requirement Order as contained in G.O. (MS) No.11/2002/G.Edn. Dated 07.01.2002 this contention is devoid of merit. In the case of schools having 29 posts of H.S.As, the break-up as per the said order shall be as follows:- Physical Science - 5 Natural Science - 4 Mathematics - 7 Social Studies - 6 English - 7 -------- TOTAL 29 ====== 7. In such circumstances, the incumbent to be retrenched shall be the junior most teacher in Physical Science where there are more teachers than the number of posts sanctioned. This is the net effect of Ext.P8 Government Order which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we see no reason for interference. 8. Going by Rule 51 Chapter XIV A K.E.R also, the incumbent to be retrenched is the junior most teacher in the category concerned. The contention that HSAs in different subjects altogether shall be considered as one single category cannot be countenanced, because teachers are appointed for imparting the lessons in the concerned subjects. Therefore, the category for H.S.A subjects shall be considered against each subject for which sanction has been issued by the District Educational Officer concerned in the Staff Fixation order for the respective years. 9. Writ appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly.