JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.23577/2024 seeking to quash Ext.P10 order wherein the 1 st respondent has directed to appoint the 8 th respondent as LPST. 2. The petitioner states that she was working as LPST in the 6 th respondent-School from the year 2022 onwards. The initial appointment was against a retirement vacancy. In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19808/2021, the said vacancy wherein the petitioner is appointed, was reserved for disabled candidates. 3. The petitioner states that the 6 th respondent had submitted requisite roster and requisition letter for appointment of disabled candidates as LPST. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the 5 th respondent- AEO. The 5 th respondent, as per Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2023, ordered that the petitioner be appointed on daily wage basis till a disabled candidate is appointed on permanent basis. 4. The 8 th respondent, who was working as UPST in another School under the same Management, was retrenched on 15.07.2023 due to Division fall. The 8 th respondent claimed that she should be appointed as LPST in the place of the petitioner since she is a Rule 51A claimant. The 5 th respondent rejected the representation of the 8 th respondent as per Ext.P5. 5. The 8 th respondent therefore filed Ext.P6 revision petition. The petitioner appeared before the 1 st respondent and filed a detailed reply. The 1 st respondent issued Ext.P10 order dated 22.06.2024 holding that the 8 th respondent is a senior 51A claimant and therefore she should be appointed. The petitioner states that Ext.P10 is highly illegal as the 8 th respondent can have claim only over future vacancies. 6. The petitioner later filed W.P.(C) No.14677/2025 challenging Ext.P16 order dated 28.10.2024 issued by the AEO wherein the AEO has ordered that if the petitioner has drawn wages and other benefits during the period from 15.07.2023 to 06.10.2024, the wages should be recovered. 7. When W.P.(C) No.23577/2024 came up for admission on 17.12.2024, this Court passed an interim order directing the 6 th respondent to pay the salary of the petitioner with arrears. COC No.615/2025 has been filed alleging non compliance of the said interim order. 8. The 8 th respondent filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.23577/2024. In the counter affidavit, the 8 th respondent submitted that she has got approved service as UPSA from 02.12.2016 onwards. COC No.615/2025 has been filed alleging non compliance of the said interim order. 8. The 8 th respondent filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.23577/2024. In the counter affidavit, the 8 th respondent submitted that she has got approved service as UPSA from 02.12.2016 onwards. The 8 th respondent also possessed TTC qualification. The 8 th respondent was ordered to be retrenched from 15.07.2023 due to reduction of posts. At that time, a vacancy of LPSA was available at Rama Varma Union LP School. The 8 th respondent was not appointed against the said vacancy. The 8 th respondent would urge that being a Rule 51A claimant, she has a superior right over the petitioner for appointment. Finally, the Government has issued Ext.P10 (in W.P.(C) No.23577/2024) declaring the Rule 51A claim of the 8 th respondent. The writ petitions filed by the petitioner are without any force or merit and are liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the educational authorities and the learned counsel appearing for the 8 th respondent. 10. The petitioner was appointed as LPST as per Ext.P1 order dated 01.06.2022, against a vacancy which arose consequent to the retirement of Smt. N.K. Shakeela as LPST. It is not in dispute that the said vacancy was reserved to disabled candidates. By Ext.P3 order, the AEO directed that the petitioner be paid salary on daily wage basis. 11. The Government, as per Ext.R8(c) order dated 22.06.2024 found that the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed ought to have been filled up by PwD candidates. The Government found that proceedings including interview are going on for appointment of PwD candidates. The Government found that the 8 th respondent is a Rule 51A claimant and therefore she had a superior right over the vacancy which arose on 01.06.2022. It is not in dispute that the 8 th respondent is a Rule 51A claimant. The 8 th respondent therefore had a superior right for appointment against the vacancy filled up by appointing the petitioner. 12. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to get a declaration that she is eligible for continuing as per Ext.P1. However, the petitioner has rendered service for certain period against existing vacancies and therefore eligible for wages for the period she has worked. 13. 12. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to get a declaration that she is eligible for continuing as per Ext.P1. However, the petitioner has rendered service for certain period against existing vacancies and therefore eligible for wages for the period she has worked. 13. As the petitioner had worked during the period from 15.07.2023 to 06.10.2024 against an existing vacancy and since the petitioner has actually worked against that vacancy, the petitioner will be entitled to payment of wages during that period, which was actually paid to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it would be inappropriate to effect any recovery from the salary received by the petitioner for which period the petitioner had actually worked. 14. In the circumstances, Ext.P16 order dated 28.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.14677/2025 is set aside to the extent it orders recovery from the petitioner. The petitioner will further be eligible for salary for the period from 07.10.2024 to 12.01.2025. The eligible amounts shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months. W.P.(C) Nos.23577/2024 and 14677/2025 are disposed of with the afore directions. The Contempt of Court Case is dismissed.