S. Sankarasubban, J.

All the above cases have come before us on reference by a Division Bench. The question involved in these cases is regarding the interpretation of the Proviso to R.43 of Chapter XTVA of the Kerala Education Rules. The first decision on this aspect is the decision reported in Babu Varghese v. Manager, 1994 (1) KLT 557. Against that, W.A.No.1707 of 1993 was filed. It is without noting that the appeal was pending against the decision in 1994 (1) KLT 557 that the decision in Padminikutty v. D.E.O., Ottappalam, 1996 (1) KLT 397 was rendered. All the above cases were heard together.

2. We heard, learned counsel Sri. C.P. Sudhakara Prasad, Sri. L. Gopalakrishnan Pod, Sri. A.K. Chinnan, Smt. Seemanthini, Sri. A.K. Avirah, Sri. P.K. Suresh, Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, Sri. K.A. Abraham, Sri. Julian Xavier, Sri. P.E. Cherian, Sri. G. Gopakumar and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel on both sides argued the matter and a large number of decisions were cited before us. Since W.A.No.1707 of 1993 is filed against the decision reported in 1994 (1) KLT 557, we are considering that case first.

3. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned Single