The power under R.39 could be exercised in the case of a group of persons, provided that other conditions for the exercise of the power are satisfied.

1. The point of law, and the validity of the very order impugned in this writ petition, had been the subject-matter of an early decision of this court. The legal point relates to the interpretation of Chapter I R.3 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KER'), The order impugned is G.O. (MS)62/78/G. Edn. dated 17-5-1978, Ext. P6 in the case. On the legal point, Eradi, J., as he then was, had already expressed himself in K.K. Moidu v. State of Kerala and others, 1973 KLJ. 591, That decision was referred to by one us (Kochu Thommen, J.) while considering the validity of the self-same order, which had been challenged in another writ petition O.P. No. 2027 of 1978.

2. Our learned brother Narendran, J. before whom the present writ petition was argued felt that the view taken in OP. No. 2027 of 1978 required reconsideration. The aspect on which the learned judge felt such reconsideration necessary was whether the powers under Chapter I R.3 could be invoked "to deal with individual cases only or whether undue hardship caused to a group of persons can be redressed by invoking the rule".

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Chapter I R.3 of the KER. substantially corresponded to the provisions of Rude 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short'K.S. & S.S.R.'). The latter rule, he pointed out, had been subjected to, a detailed examination by a Full Bench of this court in Sreedharan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1973 KLT.151: 1973 KLJ. 187. Eradi, J. speaking for the full court, examined all aspects of the rule and clearly delineated the area of its operation and the limitations of the exercise of the power thereunder. According to counsel for the petitioner, the decision was authority for the proposition that R.39 cannot be invoked, when relief is to be given to a plurality of persons.

4. Though the reference was limited to this aspect of the case, in the course of arguments, the sustainability of the order Ext; P6, in the light of the guidelines given by this court regarding the exercise of such power, was also challenged.

5. We shall examine in the first instance the legal question in respect of which reference has been made to the Division Bench by the learned judge.

6. As stated earlier, the very rule with which we are directly concerned, namely, Chapter I R.3 of the KER. had been considered earlier in 1973 KLJ. 591 supra. It is also noteworthy that the judgment therein was rendered by Eradi, J. himself. Reference was made in the course of the discussion of that case to the Full Bench decision in 1973 KLT.151 supra. The following passage in Moidu's case encapsulates the central idea:

"In my opinion, it is not possible to construe the above rule as conferring a naked and arbitrary power on the State Government to mete out special treatment to any individual case according to its whim or fancy in a manner directly opposed to the provisions contained in the Rules. Such an interpretation would render the rule open to attack on the ground that it is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. It is obvious that the purpose of R.3 is only to reserve power with the Government to grant a relaxation of the rigour of any of the provisions contained in the Kerala Education Rules in special cases where the circumstances are such as would warrant a valid classification of the said case for purposes of Art.14 of the Constitution and where manifest injustice and inequity would otherwise result. In T. C. Sreedharan Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, 1973 KLJ. 187, a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider and explain the scope of Rule; 39 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules which is a provision substantially similar to R.3 with which we are now concerned and the observations contained in the said judgment are fully relevant and applicable in the present case."

This principle was applied while rendering the decision in O. P. No. 2027 of 1978.

7. B