Antony Dominic, J.
The issues raised in these appeals being connected, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Writ Appeal No. 2857/2009 arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing W.P. (C) No. 9197 of 2009. By the said judgment, learned single Judge set aside Exhibits P1 and P3 orders passed by the District Educational Officer and Director of Public Instruction, whereby the claim made by the appellant, a Lab Assistant in the Higher Secondary Section for appointment as UPSA was upheld. In so far as Writ Appeal No. 442/2010 is concerned, that appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1647 of 2010, whose Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by the Educational Authorities declining his claim for appointment as UPSA was challenged and that challenge was negatived by the learned single Judge.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the management. Facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the appellants are Lab Assistants in the Higher Secondary Section. Their claim is for appointment as UPSA. That claim is sought to be substantiated by relying on Note (1) to Rule 1 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Law is settled by virtue of the judgments of this Court in Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam Corporate management Schools v. Sreelatha [2006 (3) KLT 867] and Sam Joseph v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KLT 99], that apart from the Rules in Chapter XXXII and the Rules contained in other chapters of KER which are made applicable, the other provisions of the KER including Chapter XIV A are not applicable to the staff in the Higher Secondary Section. If that be so, since the appellants are working as Lab Assistants in the Higher Secondary Section, they are outside Chapter XIV A of KER. Therefore, claim of the appellants for appointment as UPSA cannot be sustained by contending that they also come within the feeder category enumerated in Note (1) to Rule 1 of Chapter XIV A KER. If that be so, the conclusion of the learned single Judge rejecting the claim of the appellants for appointment as UPSA does not suffer from any infirmity justifying interference in these appeals.
Appeals fail and are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE DMR/-