Balakrishnan Nair, J.

Before referring to the reasons why the Writ Appeal was referred to the Full bench, we will refer briefly to the facts necessary for the disposal of the case. The appellant was appointed as H.S.A. (Social Studies) in the sixth respondent's school on 5.6.2000. The said appointment was approved by the competent authority. The fourth respondent was appointed as U.P.S.A. in the Upper Primary wing of the said school on 6.6.2001. The said appointment was approved with effect from the said date. The said respondent was qualified for appointment as H.S.A. (Mathematics) and also H.S.A.(English), provided a vacancy in the latter post arose before 19.7.2005. B.Ed. in English became an obligatory qualification for appointment as H.S.A. (English) only from the said date (as per Ext.P4 Government Order) and the fourth respondent was having B.Ed. in Mathematics only.

2. The Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 7.1.2002, creating a new cadre of H.S.A. (English), by re-allocating the periods of English allocated to H.S.As. In Core Subjects. It was also ordered therein that the existing teachers shall not be retrenched for creation of the post of H.S.A.(English). The Government, by Ext.P3 order dated 16.7.2003 directed that existing H.S.A., if any, having qualification for appointment as H.S.A.

(English) shall be accommodated against the newly created post of H.S.A.(English). By Ext.P4 dated 19.7.2005, the Government ordered that B.Ed. in the concerned subject shall be a mandatory qualification apart from the degree in the concerned subject, for appointment as H.S.A. in a subject. The fourth respondent was appointed against a maternity leave vacancy as H.S.A. (Mathematics) during the period from 29.10.2002 to 12.3.2003. During the academic year 2004-05, one post of H.S.A. (English) was created in the 6th respondent's school. The fourth respondent was appointed in that vacancy with effect from 21.7.2004. During 2006-07, there was one division fall, as evident from Ext.P7 staff fixation order. As per the said order, the appellant was retained in the 6th respondent's school. As a result, there was no vacancy to accommodate the fourth respondent in the cadre of H.S.A. and therefore, she was reverted as U.P.S.A. The approval of appointment of the fourth respondent as H.S.A.(Mathematics) and H.S.A. (English) were rejected by the D.E.O. The fourth respondent filed a revision before the Government. The Government allowed the revision in part and approved her appointment as H.S.A.(Mathematics) from 29.10.2002 to 12.3.2003 and allowed her to draw salary in the post of U.P.S.A. from 21.7.2004. But, the approval of appointment of the 4th respondent as H.S.A (English) was rejected. The fourth respondent filed a review petition before the Government. That review petition was allowed by Ext.P6 dated 20.12.2006, approving the appointment of the fourth respondent as H.S.A. (English) from 21.7.2004. In obedience to that direction, the D.E.O. by Ext.P10 order, approved the appointment of the fourth respondent as H.S.A.(English) from 21.7.2004 to 14.7.2006. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P6 and P10 orders. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal.

3. When the Writ Appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench, noticing the apparent conflict between the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Rakhee v. State of Kerala, 2007(1) KLT 766 and the decision in Ashalatha v. State of Kerala, 2000(1) KLT 192, the appeal was referred to be heard by the Full Bench.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, Smt.V.P.Seemanthini submitted that Ext.P6 order being one passed without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed. It is settled position in law, that, the Government cannot review an order passed by it under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, (for short, "the K.E.R."). On the other hand, Sri.V.A.Muhammed, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, submitted that, if Ext.P6 order i