M. Ramachandran, J.

Common questions arise in these three Writ Petitions. When O.P. No. 31283 of 2000 had come up for hearing, a learned single judge had referred the matter for decision by the Division Bench, and the two other cases also got posted along with them. Mr. Justice Gafoor had been invited to the decisions in Rehelamma v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 429) and Manager, Mar Sleeba U.P. School v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 626) as confirmed by W.A. No. 207 of 1990 which has laid down that a retrenched teacher, though on protection, on going back to the school was obliged to surrender seniority, in favour of subsequent appointees. The learned judge was of the opinion that the said line of decisions required a fresh look, as the quoted decisions had not taken note of the circumstance that such a protected teacher came back and continued in the school, on the basis of the original appointment order, and the effect thereof might be a legal fiction that the date of appointment remained unaltered.

2. However, on the facts of the present cases, we are of the opinion that they could be disposed of without going to the above aspect or by making a reference to a Full Bench, and the question posed could be reserved to be agitated in a more appropriate case.

3. O.P. No. 31283 of 2000 is filed seeking for quashing the order of the Educational Authorities, where under petitioner's claim for promotion has been negatived. O.P. No. 11107 of 2001 concerns the rival claims of two teachers of N.S.V. High School, Kollam for seniority and consequent eligibility for being appointed as Headmistress of the school. The brief facts are as following:

In O.P. No. 31283 of 2000, the petitioner was appointed as HSA (Mathematics) on 6th June, 1979. Her continuance thereafter is uninterrupted. The 6th and 7th respondents respectively were appointed as HSAs on 3rd June, 1977 and 8th November, 1977 in the above school, but were deployed in 1984 and were protected teachers for about three years, and had rejoined the school only on 20th October, 1987. The claim projected is that the respondents-teachers can claim continuous service from 20th October, 1987 only, and in view of R.37(1), Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, the petitioner was to be adjudged as senior to them. In the seniority list prepared, the above position had been overlooked, to be noted. Petitioner equated the claim of a protected teacher that to a 51-A claimant. She had also pointed out that the appointment of the 7th respondent, though irregular, had been ratified by a special order, and in no case, the benefit of the initial date could have been taken advantage of.

4. The petitioner therefore had challenged the assignment of seniority to the said persons, but the District Educational Officer, by Ext. P-4 dated 17th December, 1999, had rejected the petition, as according to him, the list stood finalised as on 1st January, 1995, and had not been subjected to challenge at appropriate time. According to him, at the distance of time, it was impermissible to attack it. On appeal by the petitioner, however, the said decision was set aside, but the Revisional Authority viz., the Government had by Ext. P-9 restored the order of the District Educational Officer. The Government found that as against the final seniority list published as on 1st January, 1995 the petitioner has chosen to file objections only in 1999. The order reads:

' "In the final seniority list published as on 1st January, 1995 the petitioner was shown as senior to Smt. Usha Devi. This seniority list was published after circulating the provisional seniority list calling for objection. Smt. Usha Devi has not filed any objections against the provisional seniority list. Even after publishing the final seniority she has not challenged the seniority of the petitioner. Therefore the seniority position of the petitioner is final as on 1st January, 1995. Seniority list for subsequent years is prepared only to accommo