Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in this case is, hether the protected teachers will lose seniority in their parent school on being deployed to Government schools or whether they can count the period of their deployment also for the purpose of reckoning seniority in their parent school.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The petitioners and the 4th respondent were High School Assistants of Mar Thoma High School, Mekkezhoor P.O., managed by the third respondent. The petitioners were appointed in the cadre of High School Assistants in the third respondent's school on 30.6.1977, 7.6.1978 and 4.6.1989 respectively. Their subjects were Mathematics, Science and Sanskrit respectively. The 4th respondent was appointed as High School Assistant (Social Studies) in the third respondent's school on 1.6.1977. While so, the 4th respondent became a surplus hand in the said school. As a result of division fall, there was reduction of one post of H.S.A. (Social Studies) as per staff fixation order issued by the District Educational Officer for the year 1997-98. Being the junior-most among the Social Studies hands, she was deployed by the Deputy Director of Education, Pathanamthitta by Ext.P1 order dated 16.12.1997 to Government Higher Secondary School, Kadammanitta. Later, the Deputy Director by Ext.P2 order dated 31.5.1999 reposted the 4th respondent to her parent school, as a retirement vacancy arose in that school. She rejoined the school on 1.6.1999. While so, Ext.P3 seniority list dated 15.3.2004 of the H.S.As. of the school as on 1.4.2004 was published, in which the 4th respondent was shown as senior to the petitioners. So, they filed Exts.P4 to P6 objections to the said seniority list on 20.4.2004. When no action was taken on those representations, the writ petition was filed in April 2005 praying to quash Ext.P3 and also to direct respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the first petitioner as Headmaster in the third respondent's school in the vacancy that was going to arise on 1.6.2005 in preference to the 4th respondent. They also prayed for revising the seniority list as prayed for in their representations. Other incidental reliefs were also sought. While so, their representations were rejected by Ext.P7 order dated 30.6.2005 by the D.E.O., Pathanamthitta. Therefore, the writ petition was amended incorporating the challenge against Ext.P7 also.

3. According to the petitioners, since the 4th respondent does not have continuous service in the post of High School Assistant, and as her service is broken between 16.12.1997 and 31.5.1999, she is junior to them. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit claiming that a protected teacher has got a lien in the school and therefore, though she served outside, she should be treated as continuing in her parent school for the purpose of seniority and promotion. According to her, she was only transferred from her school to Government Higher Secondary School and she was working on work arrangement basis and therefore, her seniority is in no way affected. During the pendency of the writ petition, there was more than one interim order passed by the Single Bench, but it is unnecessary to refer to those orders or to the various petitions and affidavits filed in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition, noticing the alleged conflict between various decisions rendered by this court referred the matter to be heard by the Division Bench. The Division Bench, which heard the matter, referred the case to be heard by a larger Bench. The Division Bench took the view that, the matter requires hearing by a larger Bench in view of the observations in the Full Bench decisions of this Court in Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2003(1) KLT 998(FB) and Pushparaj v. Manoharan, 2006(2) KLT 951 (FB).

4. First, we will consider, whether in view of the above Full Bench decisions, the point that arises for consideration in this case has to be refe