JUDGMENT : These writ petitions are connected; therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. First, I will narrate the facts in WP(C) No. 5691 of 2019. 2. The petitioner in this case, Sri. Hakkeem K. was appointed as the High School Assistant (English) (in short, 'HSA') on 27.07.2011 in a leave vacancy that occurred consequent to the leave availed by Sri. Abdul Nazar K., for a period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013. However, this appointment was approved by the 3rd respondent, The District Educational Officer only on 16.07.2016. Ext.P1 is the appointment order. Later, the leave was extended by Sri. Abdul Nazar for a period from 03.06.2013 to 31.05.2014 and thereafter from 02.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. Hence the petitioner was again appointed in the extended leave period of Sri. Abdul Nazar. Since the appointment of the petitioner in the leave vacancy was not approved, it is the case of the petitioner that he made a request on 31.12.2014 to the 4th respondent, Manager, stating that he may be permitted to join duty on a permanent vacancy in the school. Ext.P2 is the request made by the petitioner. In Ext P2, the petitioner, in effect, requested the Manager to allow him to discontinue his service in the school, anticipating a permanent vacancy. The fourth respondent accepted the same as evident from the endorsement in Ext.P2. Meanwhile, in 2011-12, an additional division vacancy in HSA (English) arose. To the said vacancy, one Smt. K.U. Anju was appointed. Later a permanent vacancy arose in the category of HSA (English) consequent to the retirement of Smt. P.B. Suma. To the said vacancy, Smt. K.U. Anju was appointed on 01.06.2015. The resultant additional division vacancy was filled up by appointing the 5th respondent Smt. Vidya Dharithri M.P. The appointment of the 5th respondent was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 order. The 5th respondent Smt. Vidya Dharithri filed an appeal against Ext.P3 order and it was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education. However, the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent, Smt. Vidya Dharithri was allowed by the Director of Public Instructions as per Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 30.10.2017 before the 1st respondent, The State Government, as evident by Ext.P5. However, the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent, Smt. Vidya Dharithri was allowed by the Director of Public Instructions as per Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 30.10.2017 before the 1st respondent, The State Government, as evident by Ext.P5. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.35525 of 2017 and this Court was pleased to stay Ext.P4 till the disposal of Ext.P5 revision as per Ext.P6 judgment. 3. According to the petitioner – Sri. Hakkeem K., he is a claimant of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'KER') and he ought to have been appointed in a permanent vacancy that arose on 01.06.2015. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Soman P.S. v. A.K.M. High School Poyya and Others [ 2013 (2) KHC 173 ] and contended that he is entitled to get the benefits under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. It is the case of the petitioner that the manager appointed, the 5th respondent, Smt. Vidya Dharithri overlooking his claim. According to the petitioner, the manager has not followed the statutory mandates in Rule 51A before appointing Smt. Vidya Dharithri. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner before appointing a fresh hand as stipulated under Note (2) of Rule 51A. But the Government as per Ext.P7 order, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, WP(C) No.5691 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner, Sri. Hakeem K. with the following prayers : “(i) call for the records relating to Ext.P4 and P7. (ii) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 and P7. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to appoint and approve the appointment with effect from 1.6.2015 onwards and pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner. (iv) issue such other writs, orders, directions including interim orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case. (v) allow this writ petition with costs.” (sic) 4. WP(C) No.40812 of 2018 is also filed by Sri. Hakkeem K. The above writ petition was filed with following prayers : “(i) issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to take necessary steps to get salary based on Ext.P3 to the petitioner with effect from 20.6.2017. (v) allow this writ petition with costs.” (sic) 4. WP(C) No.40812 of 2018 is also filed by Sri. Hakkeem K. The above writ petition was filed with following prayers : “(i) issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to take necessary steps to get salary based on Ext.P3 to the petitioner with effect from 20.6.2017. (ii) issue such other writs, orders, directions including interim orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case. (iii) allow this writ petition with costs.” (sic) 5. The case of the petitioner, Sri. Hakkeem K. in WP(C) No.40812 of 2018 is that, he was appointed as the HSA subsequently and his appointment was approved with effect from 20.06.2017 in the vacancy of Smt. Indirabai, a senior teacher who was promoted as headmistress as evident by Ext.P3 order. Since the appointment of headmistress Smt. Indirabai was approved based on Ext.P1 judgment of this Court and was directed to pay the consequential salary to the headmistress, the 1st respondent, The District Educational Officer, Malappuram, unnecessarily kept pending the salary of the petitioner-Sri. Hakkeem who was appointed in the vacancy of the headmistress is the grievance. 6. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 19.12.2018, this Court passed the following order : "In view of the fact that the petitioner's re-appointment was approved, salary shall be given to the petitioner. This will be subject to the further orders to be passed in the matter. The petitioner shall also execute a bond. The salary will be paid to the petitioner only on execution of bond. Post along with WP(C) No.6945/2018.” 7. WP(C) No.2774 of 2019 is filed by Smt. Vidya Dharithri M.P., who is the 5th respondent in WP(C) No.5691 of 2019. According to her, her appointment was approved by the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram and the same was confirmed by the Government. Still, the salary is not disbursed to her. Post along with WP(C) No.6945/2018.” 7. WP(C) No.2774 of 2019 is filed by Smt. Vidya Dharithri M.P., who is the 5th respondent in WP(C) No.5691 of 2019. According to her, her appointment was approved by the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram and the same was confirmed by the Government. Still, the salary is not disbursed to her. Hence WP(C) No.2774 of 2019 was filed by Smt. Vidya Dharithri with the following prayers : “(i) call for the entire records leading to Exhibit P1 and declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for salary and other service benefits attached to the post of H.S.A. (English) w.e.f.01/06/2015 (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to disburse the salary due to the petitioner in the post of H.S.A.(English) w.e.f.01/06/2015 and continue to disburse the salary on all subsequent due dates; (iii) issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case; And (iv) to award the cost of the petitioner in these proceedings.” (sic) 8. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 26.02.2019, this Court passed the following order : “The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondents 4 and 5. Adv. Shri. Augustine Joseph takes notice for 6th respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that the salary shall be paid on 20.06.2017, on executing bond. As seen from Ext.P4, petitioner and 6th respondent can be accommodated from 01.06.2016. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the District Educational Officer, Malappuram to disburse the arrears of salary to the petitioner and 6th respondent due from 01.06.2016 on executing bond within a period of two months. The salary from the current month onwards shall be paid without any delay Post on 29.05.2019.” (sic) 9. Today, all these cases came up for consideration. Heard Adv. Vinod Madhavan for Smt. Vidya Dharithri M.P., who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.2774 of 2019 and Adv. Augustine Joseph for Sri. Hakkeem K., who is the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.40812 of 2018 and 5691 of 2019. I also heard the Government Pleader. 10. The short point raised by the counsel appearing for Smt. Vidya Dharithri is that Mr. Vinod Madhavan for Smt. Vidya Dharithri M.P., who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.2774 of 2019 and Adv. Augustine Joseph for Sri. Hakkeem K., who is the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.40812 of 2018 and 5691 of 2019. I also heard the Government Pleader. 10. The short point raised by the counsel appearing for Smt. Vidya Dharithri is that Mr. Hakkeem, who is the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.40812 of 2018 and 5691 of 2019 is not entitled to the preferential appointment as a Rule 51A claimant in the light of Rule 53 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER, because he resigned from the job as evident by Ext.P2. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Mr. Hakkeem K. submitted that Mr. Hakkeem was initially appointed for a period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013 and thereafter, he was again appointed on 03.06.2013 to 31.05.2014 and thereafter from 02.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. Since the petitioner completed the leave vacancy period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013, he is a Rule 51 A claimant and he ought to have been appointed in the first vacancy that arose on 01.06.2015. 11. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. Ext.P2 produced in WP(C) No.5691 of 2019 is the request submitted by Sri. Hakkeem to discontinue his service in the leave vacancy. Smt. Vidya Dharithri was appointed as HSA (English) with effect from 01.06.2015. The point to be decided is whether Sri. Hakkeem K is a Rule 51 A claimant who can be appointed in the vacancy in which Smt. Vidya Dharithri was appointed. Rule 53 of Chapter XIV(A) KER reads thus : “53. A teacher shall not himself terminate his service before the expiry of the term of his appointment without the permission of the Educational Officer.” 12. Admittedly, the petitioner discontinued his service before the expiry of the term of his appointment in the leave vacancy as evident by Ext.P2 in WP(C) No.5691 of 2019 without the permission of the Educational Officer. If that is the case, whether Sri. Hakkeem can be treated as Rule 51A claimant is the question. For deciding the same, it will be better to extract Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of KER here : “51A. If that is the case, whether Sri. Hakkeem can be treated as Rule 51A claimant is the question. For deciding the same, it will be better to extract Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of KER here : “51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise if there is no claimant under Rule 43 in the lower category in schools under the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. Provided that a teacher who was relieved under rule 49 or rule 52 shall not be entitled to preference for appointment under this rule unless such teacher has a minimum continuous service of one academic year as on the date of relief: Provided further that the first preference under this rule shall be given to protected teachers belonging to the same educational agency. Provided further that preference shall be given to teachers from Teachers Bank for appointment in vacancies as specified in Rule 7 of Chapter XXI. Note 1. If there is more than one claimant under this rule the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointments is the same then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under sub-rule (4) of rule 1 as far as High schools are concerned. Note 1A:- Fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing re-appointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Note 1A:- Fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing re-appointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause, “Protected teacher” means, a teacher who has been retrenched for want of vacancy after putting such length of regular service that may be specified by the Government or who is eligible for such Protection as per G.O.(MS) No.104/69/Edn.dated 6-3-1969 or G.O. (MS) No.231/84/G.Edn.dated 27-10-1984 or any other orders issued by Government from time to time. Note 2. Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgment due and give a period of 14 (fourteen) clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time, the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited." 13. Rule 51A claim is entitled only to qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancy. Rule 49 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER reads thus : “49. Qualified teachers except Headmasters appointed in vacancies which are not permanent which extend over the summer vacation and who continue in such vacancies till the closing date shall be retained in the vacancies during the vacation, if their continuous service as on the closing day is not less than eight months. The teachers so retained shall be entitled to the vacation salary. These teachers shall be relieved on the closing day if their continuous service as on that day is less than the aforesaid period. This rule shall not apply to teacher appointed in training vacancies. Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule, 'Headmaster' includes Teacher-in-charge also. Rule 52 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is also extracted hereunder : “52. These teachers shall be relieved on the closing day if their continuous service as on that day is less than the aforesaid period. This rule shall not apply to teacher appointed in training vacancies. Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule, 'Headmaster' includes Teacher-in-charge also. Rule 52 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is also extracted hereunder : “52. (1) Teachers who are relieved on account of any reduction in the number of posts under orders of the department shall on reappointment in the same school or in another school under the same management or a different management start on the same pay as they were getting at the time of relief, whether the new appointment is permanent or not (2) Teachers thrown out from service due to the withdrawal of recognition of schools by the Department shall also be eligible to draw the pay which they were getting at the time of withdrawal of recognition of the school on re-appointment in another school.” Therefore, Rule 51A Chapter XIV(A) of KER claim is available only to the following qualified teachers; (i) who are relieved as per Rule 49 (ii) who are relieved as per Rule 52 (iii) who are relieved on account of termination of vacancies. 14. Whether Sri. Hakkeem K. will come within the category of qualified teachers, who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies is the question in this case. It is true that, Sri. Hakkeem discontinued from the post when he was working on 31.05.2014. But before that, Sri. Hakkeem had an approved leave vacancy service from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013. He was actually reappointed on 01.06.2013 in the extended Leave vacancy of Sri. Abdul Nazer K. Therefore Sri. Hakkeem relieved on termination of vacancy on 31.03.2013 and again reappointed on 01.06.2013. The period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013 is approved separately, as evident from Ext.P1. Therefore Mr. Hakkeem is a qualified teacher relieved on account of the termination vacancy on 31.03.2013. Therefore it cannot be said that, since Sri. Hakkeem discontinued from the post on 31.05.2014, he cannot be treated as a qualified teacher who relieved on account of termination of vacancies. Rule 53 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER states that a teacher himself shall not terminate his service before the expiry of the term of his appointment without the permission of the educational officer. Hakkeem discontinued from the post on 31.05.2014, he cannot be treated as a qualified teacher who relieved on account of termination of vacancies. Rule 53 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER states that a teacher himself shall not terminate his service before the expiry of the term of his appointment without the permission of the educational officer. It is true that, there is no case to Mr. Hakkeem that he obtained permission from the Educational Officer. But that is during a different spell of appointment from 02.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. Moreover, the Government while considering the matter in Ext.P7 produced in WP(C) No.5691 of 2019, found that Mr. Hakkeem is a Rule 51A KER claimant. It will be better to extract the relevant portions of Ext.P7 hereunder : Ext.P7 is the order passed by the Government confirming Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4 also there is a finding that Mr. Hakkeem is a Rule 51 A claimant. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portions in Ext.P4 also hereunder : 15. The Counsel appearing for Smt. Vidya Darithri relied heavily on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sreejith v. Manager, A.M. Upper Primary School [ 2022 (5) KLT 388 ] and contended that Mr. Hakkem is not a Rule 51A claimant. I am afraid I have to disagree with that contention. In Sreejith’s Case (supra), this court observed that the benefit under Rule 51A is conferred only to those teachers who are relieved on termination of vacancies before the permanent vacancies arose. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder : “8. The relevant portion of R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules reads thus: 51A. In Sreejith’s Case (supra), this court observed that the benefit under Rule 51A is conferred only to those teachers who are relieved on termination of vacancies before the permanent vacancies arose. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder : “8. The relevant portion of R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules reads thus: 51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise if there is no claimant under Rule.43 in the lower category in schools under the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred) provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency: Provided that a teacher who was relieved under R.49 or R.52 shall not be entitled to preference for appointment under this rule unless such teacher has a minimum continuous service of one academic year as on the date of relief: Provided further that the first preference under this rule shall be given to protected teachers belonging to the same Educational Agency: Provided further that preference shall be given to teachers from Teachers Bank for appointment in vacancies as specified in Rule 7 of Chapter XXI. xxxx xxxx As evident from the plain meaning of the words used in the provision, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word 'relieved' used in the provision will qualify only those teachers falling under Rule 49 and Rule 52, and the right based on the third limb of the provision viz, 'on account of termination of vacancies' arises immediately on the expiry of the vacancy itself, for if the word 'relieved' is not understood as qualifying the third limb as well, the provision would be obscure as far as the teachers falling under the third limb are concerned. In other words, in terms of the provision, only qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or Rule 52 or on account of termination of vacancies, shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies. In other words, in terms of the provision, only qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or Rule 52 or on account of termination of vacancies, shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies. We take this view also for the reason that the provision is not intended to confer a claim for preferential appointment to persons who are already working, but intended only to confer a claim for preferential appointment to those teachers who were relieved in the contingencies mentioned in the provision and remaining unemployed. The contention of the petitioner is that the vacancy in which he was appointed in terms of Ext.P1 order terminated on 10.10.2010 and that therefore on termination of the vacancy, he became a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA on the said date. As noted, the appointment of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 order was not initially approved by the Educational Officer. Nevertheless, when the leave granted to Sabira Pottachola was extended up to 10.10.2015, the appointment of the petitioner was also extended up to 10.10.2015, of course by a separate appointment order viz. Ext.P2. Even the said appointment was not approved by the Educational Officer initially. It is in terms of the directions issued by the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext.P3 order, the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA for the period from 01.06.2009 was approved. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 order reads thus: “Smt. Saleena K., 51B claimant as per letter read as 8th paper above has informed that she has permanently relinquished her claim for appointment under compassionate scheme and that she will not raise any claim for any post that may occur in future. It is noted that the request in the appeal of the Manager dated: 29.03.2010 is to approve the appointment from 01.06.2009 to 10.10.10 and that the request in the appeal of Sri. Sreejith T. is to approve his appointment from 01.06.2009 to 10.10.2015 as he was again appointed against the extension of L.W.A. of Smt. Sabira Pottachola from 11.10.2010 to 10.10.2015. It is also noted that the extension of L.W.A. of Smt. Sabira Pottachola from 11.10.2005 to 10.10.2010 and from 11.10.2010 to 10.10.2015 have been sanctioned by Government as per G.O. (Rt) 4736/05/G.Edn., dated: 07.10.2005 and GO.(Rt).No.4110/10/ G.E., dated: 20.09.2010 respectively. In the above circumstances, it is found that the 51B claimant has relinquished her claim for appointment permanently. It is also noted that the extension of L.W.A. of Smt. Sabira Pottachola from 11.10.2005 to 10.10.2010 and from 11.10.2010 to 10.10.2015 have been sanctioned by Government as per G.O. (Rt) 4736/05/G.Edn., dated: 07.10.2005 and GO.(Rt).No.4110/10/ G.E., dated: 20.09.2010 respectively. In the above circumstances, it is found that the 51B claimant has relinquished her claim for appointment permanently. Hence the appeal deserves merit and it is allowed. The Assistant Educational Officer, Kuttippuram is directed to approve the appointment from 01/06/2009 to 10/10/2015 if it is otherwise in order.” As explicit from the extracted portion of Ext.P3 order, in the matter of issuing the said order, the appointment of the petitioner made in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 was reckoned as a single appointment, as the petitioner was continuing without any break. If the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 01/06/2009 to 10/10/2015 is reckoned as a single appointment, there cannot be any doubt to the fact that the petitioner would not become a claimant under R.51A of Chapter XIVA in respect of the vacancy which arose on 24/11/2010. In other words, the contention of the petitioner that the appointments in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 are appointments against two separate vacancies cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, as noted, the benefit under R.51A is conferred only to those teachers who are relieved on termination of vacancy. Admittedly, the petitioner was not relieved on the expiry of the period of the initial appointment, instead he was permitted to continue without break during the extended period of leave of Sabira Pottachola and there was, therefore, no occasion for the Manager of the School to relieve the petitioner on the expiry of the term of appointment made mention of in Ext.P1 order. In other words, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person who was relieved on termination of vacancy before the permanent vacancy arose on 24/11/2010. That being so, according to us, he cannot be considered as a claimant in terms of R.51A of Chapter XIVA.” (Underline supplied) 16. In this case the 1st and 2nd respondent concede the claim of Sri. Hakkeem under Rule 51A KER. Moreover Mr. Hakkeem was initially appointed for a period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013 and he relieved from service on that day. Thereafter, he was again reappointed on 03.06.2013 to 31.05.2014 and from 02.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. There is a break in service after 31.03.2013. Hakkeem under Rule 51A KER. Moreover Mr. Hakkeem was initially appointed for a period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013 and he relieved from service on that day. Thereafter, he was again reappointed on 03.06.2013 to 31.05.2014 and from 02.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. There is a break in service after 31.03.2013. Hence the dictum in Sreejith’s Case (supra) is not applicable. Since Sri. Hakkeem completed the leave vacancy period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013 and thereafter relieved because of termination of vacancy, he is a Rule 51 A claimant and he ought to have been appointed in the first vacancy that arose on 01.06.2015. Even if Sri. Hakkeem discontinues the service on 31.12.2014, the same will not affect his Rule 51 A claim. The counsel for Sri. Hakkeem also relied on Rule 54 Chapter XIV A KER and submitted that the petitioner resigned from the post as per Ext P2 in W.P.(c) No.5691 of 2019 and hence he cannot count his service prior to his resignation. First of all, Ext P2 cannot be treated as a resignation letter. Mr. Hakkeem discontinued the service to get a permanent appointment in that school itself. The contents in Ext P2 would show that it is not a resignation letter. Moreover Rule 54 Chapter XIV A KER is not applicable in this case because that is applicable once a teacher is 're-appointed'. Here the question is whether Sri. Hakkeem can be appointed as a Rule 51 A KER claimant. Moreover, I am of the considered opinion that Rule 53 Chapter XIV A KER is also not applicable because Ext.P2 submitted by Sri. Hakkeem cannot be treated as a termination of service by a teacher. 17. Therefore, the prayers in WP(C) No.5691 of 2019 can be allowed. As far as WP(C) No.40812 of 2018 is concerned, the same is only for getting salary based on Ext.P3 order. In the light of the interim order dated 19.12.2019, that writ petition can be disposed of. WP(C) No.2779 of 2019 is to be dismissed. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner : 1. WP(C) No.5691 of 2019 is allowed setting aside Exts.P4 and P7 orders. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled appointment as HSA (English) with effect from 01.06.2015. WP(C) No.2779 of 2019 is to be dismissed. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner : 1. WP(C) No.5691 of 2019 is allowed setting aside Exts.P4 and P7 orders. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled appointment as HSA (English) with effect from 01.06.2015. Respondent No.4 shall appoint the petitioner as HSA (English) with effect from 01.06.2015 and forward the proposal for approval to the 4th respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Once such a proposal is received, the 3rd respondent will approve the same and disburse all consequential benefits in accordance with law to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the proposal for approval. 2. WP(C) No. 40812 of 2018 is disposed of, recording the order dated 19.12.2018. 3. WP(C) No.2774 of 2019 is dismissed.