K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioners are the appellants. They were appointed as UPSA in the fourth respondent's school for the period from 5.1.1995 to 17.3.1995 and 6.1.1995 to 17.3.1995 respectively. Appointments were approved. A regular vacancy of UPSA arose in the school on 13.11.1995 and in that vacancy first appellant was appointed, which was approved. A retirement vacancy of H.S.A. (Social Studies) arose in the High School section of the fourth respondent's school 10.6:1996 and the first appellant was promoted and posted in that vacancy as H.S.A. (Maths). On promotion of the first appellant to the post of HSA, a vacancy of UPSA arose in the school on 10.6.1996, and in that vacancy second appellant was appointed.

2. Appointment of the first appellant as HSA with effect from 10.6.1996 and the appointment of second appellant as UPSA in a leave vacancy from 2.1.1996 to 30.3.1996 and in the regular vacancy from 10.6.1996 were not approved. They preferred O.P. No. 13770 of 1998 before this Court and an interim direction was given by this Court directing the authorities to approve their appointments and disburse salary subject to further orders from this Court. Pursuant to the said direction, salary was disbursed to the appellants upto 31.5.1998. However salary due to the appellants from 1.6.1998 onwards was not sanctioned by the third respondent. Consequently, they filed C.C.C. No. 177 of 1999 before this Court and the same is pending consideration.

3. The District Educational Officer for the purpose of fixation of staff strength for the year 1998-99 visited the school on 1.7.1998. The District Educational Officer found that the effective strength of the students in Std. VIII as 90 and passed Ext. P2 order dated 31.8.1998 holding that the school is eligible for three divisions in Std. VIII for the year 1998-99. Director of Public Instruction, second respondent, however received a complaint with regard to bogus admissions effected in the School so as to augment the students strength. Second respondent then ordered a revisit by a super check officer. The officer visited the school on 20.10.1998. It was found that there was no sufficient strength of students for allowing three divisions in Standard VIII as ordered by the District Educational Officer. Headmaster of the School however approached the Government requesting for revisit.

4. Government, therefore, vide order dated 10.11.1998 ordered a revisit by the super check officer. Accordingly, the said officer re-visited the school on 8.12.1998. At the time of revisit it was found that the staff fixation order issued by the District Educational Officer was liable to be modified for want of sufficient number of students to sanction as much number of divisions in Standard VIII. The Officer found the effective students' strength as 78. It was also found there were bogus admissions, fraud and misrepresentation of facts by the school authorities which led to the staff fixation for the year 1998-99 by the District Educational Officer. On receipt of report of the super check officer, notice was issued to all the affected parties to show cause why one division in Std. VIII be not abolished. Parties were heard by the Director of Public Instruction and later Ext. P3 order, was passed. On the basis of Ext. P3, consequent orders were issued by the District Educational Officer vide Ext. P4. On the basis of Exts. P3 and P4, steps were taken by the authorities to revert the first appellant to the post of UPSA. Consequently, second appellant was ordered to be retrenched from service. Aggrieved by those orders, appellants have preferred the Writ Petition. Learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the orders impugned. Consequently, Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal is preferred.

5. Counsel for the appellants relying on R.23 of Chapter VI of the K.E.R. submitted that school is entitled to have three divisions in Std. VIII and that the District Educational Off