Common questions arise in these writ petitions and they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 33372 of 2005 is one Smt. A. Kunjamma, hereinafter referred to as Smt. A. Kunjamma. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 34493 of 2005 is one Sri. P.M. Mathai, hereinafter referred to as Sri. P.M. Mathai. Sri P.M. Mathai is in fact that sixth respondent in W.P.(C) 33372 of 2005. The fifth respondent in W.P.(C) 33372 of 2005 is one Smt. Rohini Mathan. In both the writ petitions the order passed in revision by the Government, which is Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) 33372 of 2005 and Ext.P3 in the other writ petition is challenged. In W.P.(C) 34493 of 2005, Ext.P1 is also challenged.

3. The facts not at dispute are as follows:

Smt. A. Kunjamma entered service on 28.7.1976. Smt. Rohini Mathen entered service on 3.6.1974. Smt. Rohini Mathen however came to be retrenched on 25.5.1992 and she was deployed to a Government School till 30.9.1997. Thereafter she rejoined on 1.10.1997. Sri P.M. Mathai joined on 4.7.1977. However he came to be retrenched on 8.12.1989 and was under deployment till 6.9.1996. Thereafter he rejoined in the School on 6.9.1996. If the total period of service in respect of Smt. Rohini Mathen and Sri. P.M. Mathai are considered including the period when they were under retrenchment and working in another School, Smt. Rohini Mathen had 31 years of service and Sri. P.M. Mathai had 28 years of service. As far as Smt. A. Kunjamma is concerned, it is not in dispute that she was never retrenched. A retirement vacancy arose in the post of Headmaster on 1.6.2003. The Manager appointed Sri. P.M. Mathai. Smt. Kunjamma gave Ext.P7 (in 33372 of 2005) relinquishment. It was to be valid for the period from 1.6.2003 to 31.5.2005. The DEO refused to approve the appointment on the ground that there was no seniority an appeal, which came to be disposed of by Ext.P1 in both writ petitions. Therein the Deputy Director found that the Manager has not produced the combined seniority list duly approved by the Educational Officer. Therefore he proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of the service book of all the three teachers. He found that though Smt. Rohini Mathen and Sri. P.M. Mathai had commenced their continuous service on 3.6.1974 and 14.7.1977 respectively they were retrenched on account of division fall. It was noted that Smt. A. Kunjamma commenced continuous service with effect from 28.7.1976 and continued in service without any interruption. Relying on the decision reported in Rahelamma v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) K.L.T. 429), it was noted that a teacher, who is on deployment cannot reckon the service for the purpose of seniority in any grade in any unit he had worked previously. It is further noted that the relinquishment given by Smt. A. Kunjamma could not be accepted as it was conditional/temporary. Thereafter the Deputy Director proceeded to dispose of the appeal holding that the appointment of Sri. P.M. Mathai could not be approved. It was also confirmed that Smt. A. Kunjamma was the only eligible teacher to be promoted against the post of Headmistress that fell vacant with effect from 1.6.2003 by virtue of her continuous service.

4. Sri. P.M. Mathai came to retire on 31.5.2005. It is not in dispute among the parties that Sri. P.M. Mathai continued as Headmaster till the date of his retirement. Smt. A. Kunjamma raised a claim as evident from Ext.P2 for appointment as Headmistress. In Ext.P2 no doubt it is stated that as her temporary relinquishment was found to be against the Circular of the DPI it is withdrawn and that the request was to consider her in terms of Ext.P1 order. It was followed by Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P6 requests. Smt. Rohini Mathen and Mr. Mathai filed revisions, which came to be disposed of by the orders which are impugned in these writ petitions. By the impugned order Government has held that Smt. Rohini Mathai shall be deemed to have been promoted and appointed as Headmistress with effect from