1. The conflict of judicial opinion on the true meaning and import of R.6B, Chap.XXIII of Kerala Education Rules, 1959, appears to have necessitated the reference of these cases to a Full Bench.

2. R.6B(1) as amended on March 6,1979 inter alia provides as under:

"(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rules in this Chapter no posts of specialist teacher or craft teacher shall be created in any upper primary school or upper primary sections of high schools for a period of 6 years from the school year 1969-70:

Provided that the posts sanctioned before 1969-70 against which specialist teachers and craft teachers are appointed and approved and such teachers who are qualified according to the rules then in force may however continue as such."

3. The contention on behalf of the petitioners in these cases is that even though Cl.(1) had placed an embargo on the creation of posts of specialist teachers in the upper primary schools, yet by virtue of the proviso the posts sanctioned before the year 1969-70 against which the appointments had already been made and approved were to continue. On the other hand, the claim on behalf of the respondents is that the proviso gives protection to the teachers who were occupying the posts at the relevant time. Their services could not be terminated. However, on their vacating the post on account of retirement or otherwise, the posts of specialist teachers were not intended to continue. Thus, the short question is - Does the proviso protect only the persons who were in position at the relevant time or even the posts, which existed at that time? Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the facts in O.P. No. 21578 of 1998. These may be broadly noticed.

4. Smt. M.C. Cicily Amma was working as a Physical Education Teacher in the M.M.C. High School, Kurichi, Sachivothamapuram in Kottayam District. She retired on March 31,1995. Vide order dated June 5, 1995, the Manager of the school appointed the petitioner against the resultant vacancy. On July 22, 1995, the District Educational Officer issued an order fixing the strength of the staff for the academic year 1995-96. He abolished the post of Physical Education Teacher. Aggrieved by the order, the Manager of the School filed an appeal before the Deputy Director - the 3rd respondent. This appeal was allowed vide order dated December 22,1995. A copy of this order is on the record as Ext.P-1. Resultantly, the District Educational Officer approved the petitioner's appointment for the period from June 5, 1995 to July 14, 1996. She was paid the salary of the post for the relevant period. However, while determining the strength of the staff for the year 1996-97, the 4th respondent abolished the post of the Physical Education Teacher. The 5th respondent again challenged the order dated July 15, 1996 passed by the 4th respondent. It appears that the Deputy Director did not entertain the appeal. Resultantly, the 5th respondent challenged the order before the Director. Vide order dated May 18, 1998, the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent was rejected. A copy of this order is on record as Ext.P-2. This position continued for the subsequent years as well. Aggrieved by the action, the petitioner represented to the Government and requested that direction for the sanction of the post of Physical Education Teacher from the year 1996-97 be issued. A copy of the representation is at Ext.P-3. The petitioner's request was rejected by the State Government wide order dated September 8, 1998. A copy of this order is at Ext.P-4. Aggrieved by the action, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition. She alleges that the orders dated May 8,1998 and September 8,1998, copies of which have been produced as Exts.P-2 and P-4, are illegal. These are contrary to the rules and the instructions issued by the State Government from time to

time.

5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It has been inter alia