JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22754 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. 2. The appellant was initially appointed as H.S.T (Social Science) in the school of the 5 th respondent from 01.06.2018 to 14.07.2019 against a retirement vacancy. She was retrenched from service on 15.07.2019 due to fall in division during 2019- 2020. The appellant was reappointed as H.S.T (Social Science) from 01.06.2023 onwards against an anticipated additional division vacancy, on daily wages as per Ext.P3 appointment order dated 01.06.2023. The Government did not sanction the additional divisions or posts. However, the Manager reappointed the appellant from 01.10.2023 onwards on regular scale of pay basis, as per Ext.P5 appointment order dated 01.10.2023. Her appointment from 01.10.2023 to 14.07.2024 was later approved by Ext.P15 order dated 14.11.2024 of the 4 th respondent District Educational Officer. According to the appellant, she is fully qualified for by-transfer appointment to the post of H.S.S.T (History). 2.1 The appellant pleads that 3 vacancies of H.S.S.T arose in the School on 03.06.2024, while the appellant was working as a regular teacher. The vacancies were in the category of H.S.S.T (History), H.S.S.T (Zoology) and H.S.S.T (Economics). Out of the 3 vacancies, 1 vacancy has to be filled up with Persons with Disabilities following the reservation. So also, 1 vacancy is liable to be filled up by granting by-transfer appointment from the qualified H.S.T in terms of Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of KER as interpreted by the Apex Court in V.K.Girija v. Resma Parayil (Civil Appeal No.11829 of 2018) dated 14.12.2022. As on the date of arising of the vacancy, there was no willing qualified teacher available in the feeder category of the post of H.S.S.T (Zoology), H.S.S.T (Economics). As such, out of the 3 vacancies, only willing qualified hands available for by-transfer appointment against the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) are the appellant and respondents 7 and 8. The 5 th respondent has managed to abolish 1 H.S.T (Social Science) post in which the appellant was continuing during 2024- 2025. As such, out of the 3 vacancies, only willing qualified hands available for by-transfer appointment against the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) are the appellant and respondents 7 and 8. The 5 th respondent has managed to abolish 1 H.S.T (Social Science) post in which the appellant was continuing during 2024- 2025. The appellant further states that, in the event of posting either the 7 th or 8 th respondents as H.S.S.T (History) with effect from 03.06.2024 under by-transfer method, the appellant could continue as H.S.T (Social Science). For denying by-transfer appointment, the Manager has identified H.S.S.T (History) vacancy for disabled persons. The said act of the Manager was under challenge in the writ petition. 2.2 It is the further case of the appellant that the setting apart of vacancies for disabled candidates is subject to the right of statutory claimants. Vacancies liable to be filled up under promotion/reappointment cannot be set apart for disabled candidates as clarified by the Government in Ext.P-11(f) Government Order dated 15.07.2024 and Annexure 1 order dated 05.09.2024. 2.3. When the appellant filed the writ petition, her appointment from 01.10.2023 to 14.07.2024 was pending approval. Hence, the appellant, inter alia, prayed to approve the said appointment. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the said appointment was approved by Ext.P15 order and the claim for by-transfer appointment of the appellant was crystallised. Under a mistaken impression that the appellant has no approved service as on 03.06.2024, her prayer for by-transfer appointment as H.S.S.T (History) is not allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, according to the appellant, an interference with the impugned judgment by this Court, exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT is necessary. 3. The appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs; "(i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P-10 and set aside the original of the same to the extent it limiting approval from 01.06.2023 to 30.09.2023 on daily wages and denied the entitlement for by transfer as HSST (History) by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to sanction additional post of HST (SS) admissible from 01.10.2023 and Petitioner is entitled for regular appointment from 01.10.2023 onwards in view of sub- rule 6 of Rule 12-A Chapter XXIII KERs and to grant approval to the Exhibit P-5 appointment on regular basis. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 5 th Respondent Manager to refrain from appointing fresh disabled hand against the vacancy of HSST (History) in view of Exhibit P-11 order. (iii a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Manager to fill up the vacancy of HSST (History) occurred on 01.06.2024 by posting either the Petitioner or Respondent 7 or 8 under by transfer appointment w.e.f. the date of re-opening of the School in the academic year 2024-25. (iii b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to initiate action against the Manager and Respondents 6 to 8 for making illegality in uploading the 6 th working day students strength and not curing the defect in the UID portal in time in order to abolish the 3 rd post of HSA(Social Science) for retrenching the Petitioner from service in an illegal manner. (iii c) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Manager from filling up of the post of HSST (Social Science) occurred on 01.06.2024 otherwise than under by transfer method. (iv) declare that the Petitioner is entitled for by transfer appointment as HSST (History) from 03.06.2024 in view of Exhibit P- 11 order." 4. The 5 th respondent Manager, filed a counter affidavit dated 09.08.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought therein and producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(d) documents. The 4 th respondent, District Educational Officer, also filed a counter affidavit dated 16.10.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought therein. 5. To the counter affidavits filed by respondents 4 and 5, the appellant had filed a reply affidavit dated 15.11.2024, producing therewith Ext.P14 document. 6. The 4 th respondent, District Educational Officer, also filed a counter affidavit dated 16.10.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought therein. 5. To the counter affidavits filed by respondents 4 and 5, the appellant had filed a reply affidavit dated 15.11.2024, producing therewith Ext.P14 document. 6. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2025 disposed of the writ petition holding that as the additional vacancy for the academic year 2023-2024 has not been sanctioned by respondents 1 to 4 so far, the appellant cannot stake any claim based on her service as H.S.T (Social Science) from 01.06.2023 onwards. As the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) earmarked for Persons with Disability, the appellant cannot claim appointment by transfer to the said vacancy. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant for regular appointment as H.S.S.T from 01.10.2023 cannot be allowed at this stage, and the claim of the appellant for appointment as H.S.S.T (History) by-transfer cannot be granted, as the vacancy is earmarked for Persons with Disabilities. However, the learned Single Judge directed the 5 th respondent Manager to resubmit the proposal for approval of the appointment of the appellant as H.S.T (Social Science) on a daily wage basis on and from 01.06.2023, if the Manager has not already resubmitted the proposal. It was further directed that the resubmission of such a proposal shall be made within a period of one month, and respondents 3 and 4 shall take a decision thereon within a further period of two months. The said judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent Manager and also the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appointment of the appellant as H.S.T (Social Science) from 01.06.2018 to 14.07.2019 and from 01.10.2023 to 14.07.2024 was approved by the District Educational Officer. However, the approval of the appointment of the appellant from 01.10.2023 to 14.07.2024 was not considered by the learned Single Judge, since the said approval order was issued during the pendency of the writ petition. However, the approval of the appointment of the appellant from 01.10.2023 to 14.07.2024 was not considered by the learned Single Judge, since the said approval order was issued during the pendency of the writ petition. Though the claim of the appellant in the writ petition was to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction additional post of H.S.T (Social Science), admissible from 01.10.2023 and the appellant is entitled for regular appointment from 01.10.2023 onwards in view of sub-rule (6) of Rule 12A Chapter XXIII of KER, the appellant is now sticking on to the stand that there is no necessity to set apart the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) itself for the disabled hands, since 3 vacancies arose in the post of H.S.S.T on the same date. Therefore, if the 7 th respondent who submitted Ext.R5(b) application dated 25.03.2024 seeking by transfer appointment to the post of H.S.S.T (History), if granted by setting apart one of the other two vacancies for the disabled candidates, the appellant can be accommodated in the arising vacancy of H.S.T (Social Science). 9. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that 3 vacancies of H.S.S.T arose on 01.06.2024 in the school. After the passing of Ext.P15 order, the appellant became eligible for by transfer appointment. Since the 7 th respondent has already made a claim by submitting Ext.R5(b) application, if the 7 th respondent is accommodated in the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) by granting by transfer appointment, the appellant can be accommodated in that vacancy of H.S.T. There is no mandate that, when 3 simultaneous vacancies arise, a particular vacancy has to be earmarked for the appointment of disabled candidates. 10. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent would submit that the appellant had previously filed three writ petitions before this Court as W.P.(C)Nos.15123 of 2024, 27915 of 2024 and 45904 of 2024 seeking various reliefs. The filing of those writ petitions was not stated in the present writ petition. 10. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent would submit that the appellant had previously filed three writ petitions before this Court as W.P.(C)Nos.15123 of 2024, 27915 of 2024 and 45904 of 2024 seeking various reliefs. The filing of those writ petitions was not stated in the present writ petition. In fact the appellant is now seeking relief with respect to the promotion of respondents 7 and 8, and she cannot step into the shoes of those respondents and seek a direction to give appointment to them to the post of H.S.S.T. The 5 th respondent Manager has already issued a communication setting apart the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) for the disabled candidates. Hence, the claim of the appellant is not maintainable. 11. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8 submitted that the vacancy that arose in the post of H.S.S.T (History) has to be filled up by giving by-transfer appointment to the 7 th respondent, who has already submitted an application for the same. 12. Though the 1 st relief sought in the writ petition by the appellant is to set aside Ext.P10 order dated 14.06.2024 issued by the Government to the extent it limited her approval from 01.06.2023 to 30.09.2023 on daily wages and denied her entitlement for by transfer appointment as H.S.S.T (History), subsequently, by Ext.P15 order dated 14.11.2024, the period of appointment of the appellant from 01.10.2023 till 14.07.2024 was also approved by the District Educational Officer. Therefore, the 1 st part of that relief has lost its significance at present. From the impugned judgment, we notice that Ext.P15 was not properly taken note of by the learned Single Judge while holding that the appointment of the appellant from 01.10.2023 has not been approved. 13. Three vacancies of H.S.S.T arose in the school on 01.06.2024. From Ext.P11(b) document, we notice that the vacancies in the post of H.S.S.T that arose are in H.S.S.T (Zoology), H.S.S.T (History), H.S.S.T (Economics). There is no dispute on the point that to the vacancy of H.S.S.T (Zoology) and H.S.S.T (Economics), there were no qualified hands in the feeder category for by transfer appointment. At the same time, to the post of H.S.S.T (History), the appellant, 7 th respondent and 8 th respondent are qualified, and the 7 th respondent has submitted Ext.R5(b) representation seeking by-transfer appointment. At the same time, to the post of H.S.S.T (History), the appellant, 7 th respondent and 8 th respondent are qualified, and the 7 th respondent has submitted Ext.R5(b) representation seeking by-transfer appointment. However, without considering that eligibility, the 5 th respondent sent Ext.R5(a) letter dated 04.04.2024 to the Employment Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, setting apart the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) for the disabled hands. When there is no law that mandates setting apart of a particular vacancy for the disabled hands, under the provisions of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016, the 5 th respondent ought to have considered setting apart any of the other 2 vacancies than H.S.S.T (History) to that category. 14. When considering the submissions made at the Bar and the materials on record, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 5 th respondent set apart the vacancy of H.S.S.T (History) itself to the person with disabilities and issued Ext.R5(a) communication to the Employment Officer with some vested interest, especially when considering the fact that there is a claimant for by-transfer appointment to the post of H.S.S.T (History), who is the 7 th respondent herein and she submitted Ext.R5(b) application dated 25.03.2024 for the same. As noted above, if the 7 th respondent is promoted to the post of H.S.S.T (History) by giving by-transfer appointment, then the appellant can be given appointment in the school in the post of H.S.T (Social Science). The learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate these contentions while disposing of the writ petition. 15. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the appellant has made out sufficient ground to allow this writ appeal in part. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22754 of 2024 and the writ petition is allowed in part by directing the 5th respondent Manager to resubmit a proposal to the Employment Officer by setting apart any of the vacancy of H.S.S.T (Zoology) or H.S.S.T (Economics) for the disabled hands. The 5th respondent shall consider Ext.R5(b) application submitted by the 7th respondent for her by-transfer appointment to the post of H.S.S.T (History) and also the appointment of the appellant to the post of H.S.T (Social Science) that will arise by the by-transfer appointment of the 7th respondent to the post of H.S.S.T (History), as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.