The petitioners are working as Teachers as well as Clerk in the L.V. High School, Pot encode. They are aggrieved by the order abolishing the post of the petitioners in the academic year 1997-98. The Government confirmed the same, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners.

2. Ext.P1 is the order dated 31.10.1997 of the 4th respondent fixing the strength for the academic year 1997-1998. It was fixed after a visit by the District Educational Officer and after a higher level verification effected by the Deputy Director of Education. Accordingly, 35 class divisions were sanctioned and in accordance with the staff strength, the petitioners' appointments were approved also.

3. A super check cell visited the school on 3.11.1997. By Ext.P2 dated 22.5.1998 a show cause notice was issued by the second respondent Director of Public Instruction. The notice contained various details regarding bogus admission and accordingly, it was proposed to abolish 12th division in Standard VIII and the consequent posts of one H.S.A. (core subject), one H.S.A. (Malayalam), one H.S.A. (Hindi), one L.D. Clerk and one FTCM with effect from 15.7.1997. After submission of the reply by the Manager and after hearing parties, by Ext.P3 it was confirmed. But while confirming the same, it was also ordered that the teachers who had worked against the irregular posts are entitled to their salary for the period they had actually worked. But the service rendered against these irregular posts from 15.7.1997 will not be counted for any service benefits such as leave, increment, vacation salary, etc.

4. By Ext.P4, the representation filed by the Manager was dismissed by the Government. This was challenged in O.P.No.10678/2000 which was disposed of with a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of the decision of this court in Sali George v. State of Kerala (2004 (2) KLT 1051) and other Govt. Orders produced by the petitioner. Again, the revision petition stands dismissed by Ext.P5.

5. Heard Shri J. Harikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the staff fixation was effected for 1997-1998 as ordered in Ext.P1. The notice Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 order passed are after the conclusion of the academic year only in 1998 and therefore the same are beyond the time limit fixed by the statute and cannot have any legal effect at all. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Sali George's case (2004 (2) KLT 1051).

7. Learned Govt. Pleader submitted that herein, Rules 12 and 15 of Chapter XXIII K.E.R. will not apply and as far as the exercise of power under Rule 12-E (3) and Rule 16 of the said Chapter is concerned, the time limit fixed under Rule 15 will not apply.

8. Relying upon the decision of this court in W.P. (C) No.8162/2009 which followed the decision in Sali George's case (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the situation herein is identical.

9. A reference to the relevant rules is therefore necessary. Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII deals with fixing of strength of teaching staff. Rule 12B provides that the orders of staff fixation shall take effect on the 15th of July every year. Rule 12C relates to scrutiny of staff fixation by higher officers. Therein also, provisions have been made to the effect that revised orders shall be passed before the end of August every year when it is exercised by the District Educational Officer against the orders passed by the Asst. Educational Officer. Sub-rule (2) provides a time limit up to the end of August every year when the orders are passed by the District Educational Officer and the scrutiny is made by the Deputy Director of Education. Rule 12D relates to appeal against staff fixation. Rule 12E provides for revision by the Director of Public Instruction against the orders of the Deputy Director of Education. Sub-rule (2) provides that "no revision preferred under thi