The 4th respondent was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in 1995 in the school of which the 3rd respondent is the Manager, in a regular vacancy. That was approved. She was, thereafter, promoted as an High School Assistant.

2. By Ext.P1, petitioner was appointed as a UPSA in the leave vacancy from 1-6-1998 to 31-3-1999.

3. In the academic year 1998-1999, Higher Secondary Course was sanctioned for the school.

4. GO.(MS.) No.162/98/G.Edn. dated 13-5-1998 laid down the conditions subject to which the Higher Secondary Courses were granted. The 3rd respondent Manager appointed the petitioner as an Higher Secondary School Teacher (Mathematics) with effect from the afternoon of 18-9-1998 as per Ext.P2.

5. Issue arose among the petitioner and the 4th respondent as to who among them was entitled to be appointed as HSST (Mathematics). That led to different proceedings before the statutory authorities, as also before this Court. By Ext.R4(b) judgment, this Court affirmed the view of the statutory authorities that the 4th respondent was entitled to be preferred. By Ext.R4(c) judgment, the matter was relegated to the statutory authorities for re-consideration. Though arguments were addressed as to the effect of Ext.R4(c) judgment on Ext.R4(b), suffice it to take the view that the relegation by Ext.R4(c) was for a consideration of all relevant matters.

6. Ext.P5 judgment had also to be issued thereafter touching the issues. Thereby, three contesting teachers, who are the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 herein respectively, were ordered to be accommodated in the sellout with a direction to the Government to decide as to what shall be the priority of their accommodation with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancies in question.

7. The Government, thereafter, issued Ext.P7 Government Order dated 15-3-2004, whereby the 4th respondent is held entitled to hold the vacancy that arose during the academic year 1998-1999, the 5th respondent in the vacancy that arose during 1999-2000 and the petitioner in the vacancy that arose during 2001-2002.

8. At the outset, I may notice that though the 5th respondent is also made a party, there is essentially no dispute between the parties as to his entitlement to the vacancy that arose during 1999-2000. No arguments were also addressed challenging that finding in Ext.P7. This leaves for determination, the issue as to whether it was the petitioner or the 4th respondent who was entitled to hold the vacancy that arose during the academic year 1998-1999.

9. The case projected by the petitioner is that in terms of G.O.(MS.)162, he was selected to be appointed and such appointment has been made on 18-9-1998. He, therefore, seeks the benefit of the directions of the Apex Court in M.M. Dolichan v. State of Kerala ((2001) 1 SCC 151) which related to the validity of the aforesaid G.O.(MS.) 162. That verdict arose from the judgment of this Court upholding the validity of the said Government Order. See (K. Krishnankutty & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1998 (2) KLJ 301). According to the petitioner, in terms of Direction No.3 in Dolichan's case, his appointment as HSST on 18-9-1998 is not liable to be disturbed. Direction No.3 in Dolichan's case reads as follows:

"(3) If there has been any appointment made pursuant to the Government Order of 13-5-1998 as on today those appointments also would continue and will not he annulled."

10. According to the petitioner, by reason of the protection given to his appointment as per the aforesaid direction, his entitlement to the post that arose during the academic year 1998-1999 ought not to have been disturbed by the Government as per Ext.P7 order.

11. The rival contention of the contesting 4th respondent is that she had entered service as a UPSA and that too, on a regular basis, in June 1995 much before the appointment of the petitioner against a leave vacancy on 1-6-1998. The appointment of the 4th respondent as above stood approved, while the petitioner