JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The 1 st petitioner is the Manager of Mowanchery UP School and the 2 nd petitioner is a UPST appointed in the School. The 2 nd petitioner was appointed as UPST as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 04.06.2012. Approval to the appointment was declined as per Ext.P2 Government Order dated 17.10.2016 on the ground that the vacancy had to be filled up by appointing protected Teacher. Ext.P2 further stated that there is management dispute. 2. For the academic year 2013-2014, though there were sufficient student strength in standard V to sanction two additional posts of UPSA, the posts were not sanctioned. One additional Division in LP Section was, however, sanctioned. No LPSA could be appointed during the academic year 2013-2014. The petitioners state that there were 24 classrooms (22 classrooms + 2 extra spaces) and 23 divisions were sanctioned. If the number of Divisions in the LP Section was limited to 10, which was the actual number of LPSAs engaged, one additional Division could have been sanctioned in UP Section. This was the position in 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 3. The 2 nd petitioner filed Appeal against the Staff Fixation Orders. The Appeal was rejected as per Ext.P8, holding that only an approved Manager can file an Appeal against the Staff Fixation Order. The 2 nd petitioner filed Ext.P9 revision/representation against Ext.P8. The claim of the petitioners was allowed in part, directing the 4 th respondent to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner from 01.04.2017, as per Ext.P11 Government Order dated 18.09.2017. 4. The petitioners state that the reason stated in Ext.P11 that there was no accommodation for the additional post, is incorrect. There are 24 classrooms and only 22 Teachers working from 2012-2013 onwards. The 2 nd petitioner therefore challenged Ext.P11. The 3 rd respondent as per Ext.P15, declined the request to sanction additional Division in UP Section holding that there was no accommodation available. 5. In W.P.(C) No.20068 of 2019, this Court set aside Ext.P15 and directed the 3 rd respondent to reconsider the matter as per Ext.P17 judgment. The 3 rd respondent, however, rejected the request as per Ext.P18 order, reiterating the stand in Ext.P15. When the 2 nd petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.1253 of 2023, the 3 rd respondent has withdrawn Ext.P18 and issued Ext.P19 order. The 3 rd respondent, however, rejected the request as per Ext.P18 order, reiterating the stand in Ext.P15. When the 2 nd petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.1253 of 2023, the 3 rd respondent has withdrawn Ext.P18 and issued Ext.P19 order. Subsequently, pursuant to the directions in W.P.(C) No.23657 of 2023, the 1 st respondent passed Ext.P21 order dated 08.08.2024, repeating the very same reasons. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. The counsel for the petitioners would argue that in case it is not possible to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner for the period from 04.06.2012 to 31.05.2013, there is no difficulty in shifting the 2 nd petitioner and accommodating him in the additional Division vacancy which occurred in 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. In the facts of the case, the 1 st respondent ought to have exercised the powers under the Rule and directed to accommodate the 2 nd petitioner in the additional vacancies, which occurred. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavit and resisted the writ petition. The 3 rd respondent stated that from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, 12 posts of LPSA and 11 posts of UPSA were sanctioned totalling 23 Divisions, one of which was an additional Division. During this period, 10 LPST and 11 UPST, including HM, worked in the School with approval. In the category of UPSA, there was no vacancy to accommodate the 2 nd petitioner. The 2 nd petitioner could not have been appointed against LPST vacancy, as the 2 nd petitioner did not possess TTC. 8. The 3 rd respondent further stated that the UPST post commensurate with the students strength in the 5 th standard was not sanctioned in the School since from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 as there was no sufficient accommodation. The 3 rd respondent has no power to redetermine the Staff strength at this length of time. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contended the 3 rd respondent. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 10. The 2 nd petitioner was appointed as UPST on 04.06.2012. It is evident from the pleadings that there was some disputes relating to appointment of Manager of the School. The dispute was settled on 20.07.2018 when Sri. Ashraf was approved as Manager. 10. The 2 nd petitioner was appointed as UPST on 04.06.2012. It is evident from the pleadings that there was some disputes relating to appointment of Manager of the School. The dispute was settled on 20.07.2018 when Sri. Ashraf was approved as Manager. The appointment of the 2 nd petitioner was not approved by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P2 order dated 17.10.2016, on the ground that the vacancy to which the 2 nd petitioner was appointed occurred due to exemption of Headmaster from class charge and therefore the said vacancy has to be filled up by appointing protected Teacher. The management dispute was also advanced as a reason for not approving the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner. 11. By Ext.P3 judgment dated 02.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No.30818 of 2014, the Court directed to approve the appointment of another Teacher in the same School disregarding the alleged management dispute. Therefore, the said reason as contained in Ext.P2 is unsustainable. For the academic year 2013-2014, the 4 th respondent sanctioned one additional Division in LP School. Additional post of UPSA was not sanctioned. No appointment was made in the vacancy of LPSA. Against 12 Divisions in the LP Section, including the additional Division sanctioned during 2013- 2014, only 10 LPSAs were working. 12. The contention of the petitioners is that if instead of the additional Division in LP Section, and additional Division in UP Section was sanctioned, the 2 nd petitioner could have been accommodated in the available space. It is not in dispute that there were sufficient students strength in standard V to sanction additional posts of UPSA. This position continued in the years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 13. As there was no approved Manager during this time, the 2 nd petitioner submitted Appeal against the Staff Fixation Orders in respect of these years. That Appeal was, however, rejected as per Ext.P8 order holding that only a Manager can file Appeal against Staff Fixation Order. The petitioners, therefore, approached the 1 st respondent filing Ext.P9 representation. The representation was partly acceded to. The appointment of the 2 nd petitioner was approved as per Ext.P11, for the period from 01.04.2017, accommodating him in the retirement vacancy of Sri. K. Raghavan, UPSA. The service rendered by the 2 nd petitioner for the period from 04.06.2012 to 31.05.2017 was not approved. 14. The representation was partly acceded to. The appointment of the 2 nd petitioner was approved as per Ext.P11, for the period from 01.04.2017, accommodating him in the retirement vacancy of Sri. K. Raghavan, UPSA. The service rendered by the 2 nd petitioner for the period from 04.06.2012 to 31.05.2017 was not approved. 14. In Ext.P11, it was stated that there is no accommodation for the additional posts. The petitioners would submit that there are 24 classrooms available and only 22 Teachers were working, including the 2 nd petitioner from 2012-2013 onwards. If that be so, the denial of approval to the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner, is unjustified. The 3 rd respondent, however, again declined the request for sanction of additional Division in UP Section, as per Ext.P15 order dated 14.02.2019, on the ground that there was no accommodation. 15. Ext.P15 was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P17 judgment dated 08.02.2023. The 3 rd respondent was directed to pass orders afresh. The 3 rd respondent later passed Ext.P19 order reiterating the reasons advanced in Ext.P15 for declining approval to the appointment. The petitioners thereupon approached the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent passed Ext.P21 order dated 08.08.2024, repeating the very same reason. 16. In Ext.P21, the 1 st respondent has stated that Staff Fixation cannot be altered after a long period of 10 years. If a post of UPST is to be sanctioned for the period from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, then a sanctioned post of LPST will have to be cancelled. In Ext.P21, the 1 st respondent has conceded that during the relevant period there were sufficient students in the School for sanctioning additional post of UPST. It was not sanctioned in view of lack of accommodation as per the report of the Deputy Director of Education. 17. It is the specific case of the petitioners that from the academic year 2013-2014 onwards, 12 Divisions were sanctioned in LP Section, but only 10 Divisions were functioning. If that be so, there cannot be any problem in converting one post of LPSA into UPSA, without affecting any LPSAs working in the School. This is so because in Ext.P14 judgment, it has been found that the issue of Fitness Certificate does not arise as the claim of the petitioners is for 22 UPSA posts. 18. If that be so, there cannot be any problem in converting one post of LPSA into UPSA, without affecting any LPSAs working in the School. This is so because in Ext.P14 judgment, it has been found that the issue of Fitness Certificate does not arise as the claim of the petitioners is for 22 UPSA posts. 18. The facts of the case would disclose that 12 LPSA Divisions were sanctioned from 2013-2014 onwards. Only 10 Divisions were functioning. Though there was sufficient student strength to justify one more post of UPSA, the post was not sanctioned alleging lack of accommodation. This was at a time when Divisions to accommodate 12 LPSAs were sanctioned in the School and only 10 LPSAs were working. Respondents would urge that at this distance of time, Staff Fixation for the years commencing from 2013-2014 cannot be altered. 19. One has to keep in mind that the Staff Fixation Orders not sanctioning additional division of UPSA in spite of availability of students, for the years 2013-2014 onwards could not be challenged successfully as there was no Manager. The petitioners had filed Appeals in this regard which were dismissed, stating that only an approved Manager can file Appeal against the Staff Fixation Order. The fact remains that the 2 nd petitioner has worked as UPST for the period from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. It would be highly illegal, harsh and unjustified, if the 2 nd petitioner is made to suffer loss of service benefits for the period, for the reason that there was no approved Manager and Staff Fixation Orders could not be promptly challenged by the Manager. This is the fifth round of litigation the petitioners had to litigate for approval of service. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition has to be disposed of with appropriate directions. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P19 and P21 are set side. The 3 rd respondent is directed to modify Exts.P4, P5, P5 (a) and P5(b) Staff Fixation Orders sanctioning an additional Division for the academic years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, if necessary reducing the sanctioned Divisions in the LP Section which were not functioning during this period. There will be a further direction to the 5 th respondent to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner by shifting him to the additional vacancy to be created as above. There will be a further direction to the 5 th respondent to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner by shifting him to the additional vacancy to be created as above. The 2 nd petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits.