The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review conferred on the Government under R.2B(1) of the Kerala Education Rules is not unlimited or unguided, and the Government cannot rely on extraneous grounds for review.

It seems that 91 schools sought to be opened as recognized schools have been jinxed from the beginning. Though the schools were meant to be opened during the cadmic year 1986-87, they still remain in incubation stage in spite of lapse of four years. The Government which initiated the process for according recognition to those schools later resiled from it, but due to court intervention the Government could not close the Matter once and for all. However, Government, in order to circumvent an earlier judgment of this Court by which the Government was asked to proceed with the resolve to open 91 schools, have amended the law by arming itself with the power of review. In exercise of that power, Government reviewed the earlier decision and cancelled it. This batch of Original Petitions is in challenge of the said decision of the Government.

2. It was on 4-2-1987 that the Government accorded sanction to open or upgrade 91 unaided schools in different localities in Kerala State. This was done under R.2A(5) (in Chapter V) of the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'K.E.R.'), after obtaining applications from individuals and/or agencies for opening new schools. When a new government came to power, they decided to cancel the earlier decision. Accordingly, orders were issued in G.O. (MS) 107/87G/Edn. Dated 19-5-87. Some of the interested persons challenged the said decision in this Court Though a learned single judge upheld the decision, a Division Bench of this Court quashed it. The judgment of the Division Bench was reported in Madhavan Filial v. State of Kerala (1987(1) KLT 681). The Government went in appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court did not interfere (vide State of Kerala v. Madhavan Filial -1989 (1) KLT 141). The Division Bench of this Court directed the Government to proceed with the applications. The Supreme Court while dismissing the State appeal held that the applicants are entitled to have their applications considered under R.9 in Chap. V of the K.E.R. and to pass appropriate orders under R.11 in accordance with law. After the Supreme Court decision, the Government amended the K.E.R. in order to confer powers on the Government to review the orders passed under R.2A in Chapter V of the K.E.R. For that purpose, Government inserted R.2B in Chapter V of the K.E.R. On the strength of R.2B(1) of the K.E.R. Government issued notice to the applicants concerned informing Government's intention to review the earlier order dated 4-2-87. After receiving individual representations, Government passed Ext.P5 order canceling the earlier order dated 4-2-87. Ext.P5 is the order, which is challenged in these Original Petitions.

3. Three-fold attack is launched against Ext.P5. Firstly, it was con tended that R.2B(1) in Chapter V of the K.E.R. is ultra virus to Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it saddles the Government with unrestricted and unguided power to review the earlier order. Second contention is that neither the Government nor even the legislature can scuttle the due enforcement of a direction issued by the High coup under Art.226 of the constitution. As the Division Bench of this Court in Madhavan Pillai's case (cited supra) has issued a direction to the Government to proceed to the stage of Rule 9 and pass necessary orders under R.11, it is not open to the Government in exercise of its delegated legislative powers to nullify the direction, contended the counsel. The third contention is that the Government committed a serious illegality in relying on the very same grounds, which this Court and the Supreme Court once found to be extraneous and irrelevant to review the earlier decision. I shall proceed to consider those contentions one after the other.

4. Rule 2B in Chapter V of the K.E.R. reads thus:

"Review of orders by Government -(1) The Government may, either suomotu or on

The application of any party interested, review, confirm, modify or cancel any decisions and pass such orders as they may deem fit