JUDGMENT : Antony Dominic, J. These appeals arise from the common judgment in W.P.(C)No.13016 of 2014, 13645 of 2014 and 16981 of 2011 respectively which were disposed of by a common judgment along with W.P.(C) No. 2585 of 2011 against which no appeal has been preferred. Briefly states the facts of the case are as under: 2. The father of Smt. Tinta C. Varghese, the appellant, in W.A. Nos. 2177 & 2204/2015, was an High School Assistant in St. Raphael's High School, Ezhupunna. He expired while in service on 17.9.1988. Smt. Tinta C. Varghese, being a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'KER') was appointed in a leave vacancy in the school for five years with effect from 2.6.2009. This was in the vacancy of a UPSA, and her appointment upto 31.3.2010 was approved on daily wages. She was again appointed against the very same vacancy with effect from 1.6.2010. Though the District Educational Officer (DEO) initially rejected approval of her appointment, the Director of Public Instruction (DPI) passed orders directing that in the absence of any senior claimant in the school, her appointment shall be approved. Accordingly by order dated 3.10.2012, the DEO approved her appointment from 2.6.2009 to 31.5.2014. 3. While she was continuing in the leave vacancy, a regular vacancy of UPSA arose due to resignation, with effect from 30.11.2011 and Smt. Tinta C. Varghese claimed appointment against that vacancy. Her claim was not considered and it was in these circumstances, she filed W.P. (C)No. 13645 of 2014. 4. Insofar as W.P.(C)No.13016/2014 is concerned, that was filed by Sri. Tijo Thomas, whose mother was a LPSA in St. Mary's L.P. School, Edeyazham. His mother passed away on 15.11.1995. Subsequently, a leave vacancy arose in the school for the period from 5.6.2007 to 31.3.2008 and the Manager appointed Smt. K.E. Sindhu. Still later, Sri Tijo Thomas became qualified for appointment as LPSA with effect from 15.10.2009. Subsequently, a regular vacancy arose in the school on retirement of the incumbent with effect from 31.3.2010 and to that vacancy Smt. Sindhu K.E., a 51A claimant, was appointed by the Manager. Contending that he being a claimant under Rule 51B, he ought to have been appointed to that vacancy, Sri Tijo Thomas raised a claim which was rejected by the Government as a belated one. Contending that he being a claimant under Rule 51B, he ought to have been appointed to that vacancy, Sri Tijo Thomas raised a claim which was rejected by the Government as a belated one. By the said order, the Government also ordered cancellation of the approval of appointment of Smt. Sindhu for the period from 5.6.2007 to 31.3.2008, when she was appointed against the leave vacancy. Sri Tijo Thomas challenged the Government Order by filing W.P.(C)No.2585/2011 and Smt. Sindhu filed W.P. (C) No. 16981/2011. 5. In the meantime before the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), the Manager had given an undertaking on 8.1.2010 that Tijo Thomas would be considered for appointment in the vacancy which arise after accommodating Sindhu.K.E. It was in this situation, both these schools brought under the corporate educational agency of the Manager with effect from 11.2.2010. It was still later that the vacancy of 30.11.2011 claimed by Smt. Tinta C. Varghese arose with effect from 30.11.2011. To that vacancy, apparently honouring the commitment given by the Manager on 8.1.2010, Sri Tijo Thomas was appointed with effect from 13.1.2012. However, that appointment was declined to be approved by the AEO on the ground that the same was made overlooking claimants under Rules 51A and 51B. This order was confirmed by the DPI and the Government. It was in these circumstances that asserting his entitlement to get approval of his appointment that Tijo Thomas filed W.P.(C) No.13016/2014. 6. All the four writ petitions were heard together. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.2585/2011 filed by Sri Tijo Thomas and allowed W.P.(C) No. 16981/2011 filed by Sindhu K.E. Considering the prayer in W.P.(C)No.13016/2014 filed by Tijo Thomas, the learned single Judge ordered that his appointment against the vacancy of 30.11.2011 shall be approved. It was also ordered that the Government shall consider the claim of Smt. Tinta C. Varghese against any vacancy arising after 30.11.2011. It is in these circumstances, these writ appeals are filed except against the judgment dismissing W.P.(C) No.2585/2011. 7. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 8. Insofar as W.A. No.293/2016 filed by Tijo Thomas against the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 16981/2011 is concerned, his grievance is against the approval of appointment of Smt. Sindhu K.E. for the period from 5.6.2007 to 31.3.2008. 7. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 8. Insofar as W.A. No.293/2016 filed by Tijo Thomas against the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 16981/2011 is concerned, his grievance is against the approval of appointment of Smt. Sindhu K.E. for the period from 5.6.2007 to 31.3.2008. As we have already stated, by the common judgment under appeal itself, the learned single Judge has dismissed W.P.(C) No.2585/2011 filed by Sri. Tijo Thomas and rejected his claim against the regular vacancy which arose on 31.3.2008 to which Smt. Sindhu K.E. has been appointed . Against that judgment, there is no appeal preferred. In the absence of such an appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal, W.A.No.293/2016 filed by Sri. Tijo Thomas against the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 16981/2011. Therefore, W.A. No. 293/2016 deserves to be dismissed. 9. Insofar as W.A. Nos.2177/2015 and 2204/2015 are concerned, the claim of Smt. Tinta C. Varghese is that she was appointed in a leave vacancy with effect from 2.6.2009 to 31.5.2014. It was while so that the regular vacancy of UPSA arose in the school with effect from 30.11.2011. According to her, in the light of G.O.(MS) No.275/99/G.edn. dated 9.11.1999 and the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.926/2013, she ought to have been regularized against the first arising permanent/regular vacancy in the school. Therefore, according to her, the proper thing for the Manager to have done was that she should have been appointed in the vacancy of 30.11.2011 and Sri. Tijo Thomas ought to have been accommodated for the remaining period of the leave vacancy against which she was appointed. 10. Having considered the submissions made, we find that in G.O.(MS)No.275/99 dated 9.11.1999, the Government have stated thus: "It has been brought to the notice of the Government that there are the cases where the leave substitutes are not regularised against permanent/regular vacancy arising in the respective schools, whereas juniors are accommodated against permanent vacancies. 2. Government are pleased to clarify that the services of leave substitutes will be regularized against the first arising permanent/regular vacancy in the respective schools in the order of seniority." Taking into account the Government Order and also the previous judgments of this Court, in the judgment in Division Bench of this Court held thus: "8. 2. Government are pleased to clarify that the services of leave substitutes will be regularized against the first arising permanent/regular vacancy in the respective schools in the order of seniority." Taking into account the Government Order and also the previous judgments of this Court, in the judgment in Division Bench of this Court held thus: "8. While the Full Bench covered a situation of Rule 55; in the present case, Rule 51 is applicable. In both the situations as held by the Full Bench the junior most has to be sent out and as a corollary, while retaining a person in a leave vacancy who would be conferred the entitlement of a claim under Rule 51 A; there cannot be any fresh appointment in a regular vacancy. This would, in effect create two protected teachers. 9. Taking this view, we are further fortified by a Division Bench of this Court in Geetha v. Geo Thomas [2009 (4) KLT 514]; placed before us by Smt. Girija Gopal, the learned Special Government Pleader. In the said decision the appellant was appointed as UPSA in a maternity leave vacancy. Even before the order of approval from the District Educational Officer, a regular vacancy arose as a result of the promotion of one of the HSAs; in which a fresh hand was appointed. The DEO took the view that the appointment of the appellant therein having been approved on a date later to the date in which the regular vacancy arose; the appellant cannot stake a claim under Rule 51-A. Only after the order of approval was issued, could such claim be raised, was the finding of the D.E.O. The same was consistently found against the appellant by the higher authorities, which was overturned by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The Division Bench however, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge relying on Rule 51. 10. Government Order dated 9.11.1999, which clarified that the services of such leave substitutes will be regularised against the first arising permanent/regular vacancy in the respective schools in the order of seniority, was also referred to. The said order was held to have explained and clarified Rule 51 of Chapter XIV A and specific reference was also made to Rule 9 which made the authority of the Manager to make appointments subservient to the provisions of KER. The said order was held to have explained and clarified Rule 51 of Chapter XIV A and specific reference was also made to Rule 9 which made the authority of the Manager to make appointments subservient to the provisions of KER. The Division Bench also held that the plea that the maternity leave vacancy was not approved when the regular vacancy arose cannot be sustained. The appellant therein, who was continuing in the maternity leave vacancy, ought to have been appointed in the regular vacancy and the fresh hand should have been appointed only in the remaining portion of the maternity leave vacancy, was the finding. Even though the duration of the maternity leave vacancy in that case, was found to be less than two months (as was the restriction at that point of time under Rule 7A(3) of Chapter XIV A), it was held that the person who was continuing in the maternity leave vacancy, having a future claim under Rule 51-A, has to be appointed in the regular vacancy. 11. In the instant case, the 4th respondent stands on a definitely better footing. The 4th respondent's appointment to the leave vacancy made in the year 2008 was approved in the said year itself. The regular vacancy arose in the year 2011-12 long after the approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent in a leave vacancy. The Manager's contention is that anticipating a resignation he ought to be permitted to appoint a fresh hand in the beginning of the academic year itself. This contention is on the very feeble premise that, on the resignation of the teacher, after the academic year commences, the vacancy cannot be filled up due to the restriction under Rule 7A(3) of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. Rule 7A(3), we notice is a restriction on the Manager and is not a right conferred to engineer anticipation and make appointments; which in effect overcomes such restrictions. The welfare of the children would be ably taken care of; if appointment is made on daily wages, which monetary liability also would be on the Government. Rule 7A(3), we notice is a restriction on the Manager and is not a right conferred to engineer anticipation and make appointments; which in effect overcomes such restrictions. The welfare of the children would be ably taken care of; if appointment is made on daily wages, which monetary liability also would be on the Government. That, however, would definitely save the Government of the liability of the service of fresh hands appointed in the regular vacancies, in the beginning of the academic year; anticipating a resignation, again intended at getting over the restriction under Rule 7A (3) of Chapter XIV A. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with and we hence dismiss the appeal, however, without costs." 11. In the light of the Government Order and the judgment of the Division Bench, which is binding on us, we are of the view that the claim raised by Smt. Tinta C. Varghese that she ought to have been appointed against the regular vacancy of 30.11.2011 is well founded. If that be so, as a consequence Sri. Tijo Thomas should have been appointed for the remaining period of the leave vacancy till 31.5.2014 and should be considered for appointment against the subsequent vacancies, in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, W.A. No. 2177/2015 and 2204/2015 are disposed of directing that the Manager shall appoint Smt. Tinta C. Varghese against the regular vacancy of UPSA in the St. Raphael's High School, Ezhupunna with effect from 30.11.2011 and shall appoint Sri. Tijo Thomas in the leave vacancy from 30.11.2011 to 31.5.2014. The Manager shall also consider Sri. Tijo Thomas for regular appointment against any subsequent vacancies in accordance with law. 13. With the above directions and modifying the judgment under appeal to the above extent, W.A. Nos. 2177 and 2204 of 2015 are disposed of. It is also directed that Smt. Tinta C. Varghese will be entitled to monetary benefits only prospectively and no recovery will be made from the salary that was already paid to Sri. Tijo Thomas. W.A. No.293 of 2016 is dismissed.