JUDGMENT : A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 21333/2018. The appellant was appointed as HSA (English) in a School managed by Corporate Agency on 1.6.2009. A vacancy of HSST (Junior) in English language had arisen in one of the schools in 2015. The Manager originally appointed the petitioner as HSST (Junior) English on 2.11.2015. The 5th respondent being a senior in the category of HSA and teaching Social Science, objected to the appointment of the appellant. The matter was considered by the competent authorities and they have approved the appointment of the 5th respondent as HSST (Junior) by Ext.P9. The approval of appointment of the appellant was rejected and accordingly, he was reverted to the post of HSA (English). The writ petition came to be filed challenging the order of rejection inter-alia contending that as per Rule 4(3) of the Chapter XXXII of KER, the 5th respondent was not eligible to be appointed to the post of HSST (Junior) in English though he was senior, but working as HSA (Social Science), which was not in the “subject concerned” under the Educational Agency. The learned single Judge, after placing reliance on the judgment in Geetha vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (1) KLT 829 , dismissed the writ petition. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. The main contention urged by the appellant is that for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) from qualified hands, certainly, seniority is a matter. But the seniority of such teachers should be in the concerned subject. The 5th respondent was working as HSA (Social Science) whereas the appellant was working as HSA (English) and therefore, when the appointment is made to the post of HSST (Junior) English, definitely the seniority in the language which is the subject concerned requires to be taken into consideration. 3. We cannot agree with the aforesaid contention. Rule 4(3)(1)(i) of Chapter XXXII of KER reads as under:- 3. Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) 1. (i) By transfer from qualified High School Assistants in the subject concerned under the Educational Agency. 4. 3. We cannot agree with the aforesaid contention. Rule 4(3)(1)(i) of Chapter XXXII of KER reads as under:- 3. Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) 1. (i) By transfer from qualified High School Assistants in the subject concerned under the Educational Agency. 4. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that when a by transfer appointment is made to the post of HSST (Junior) what is required is a qualified High School Assistant in the subject concerned. The words “subject concerned” only indicates whether he was eligible to teach English language as HSST. If he is eligible to teach English language, definitely, he becomes qualified for by transfer appointment especially when the seniority is the criteria. There is no dispute about the fact that 5th respondent is senior to the appellant. Under such circumstances, the learned single Judge was justified in rejecting the claim made by the appellant. Geetha (supra) lays down the correct law. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. 5. The writ appeal is dismissed.