1. Since common question arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar and learned counsel Sri.P.Gopal for the petitioners and Sri.T.T.Muhamood, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents. The facts and documents referred to are those in W.P.(C).No.17893 of 2013.

2. An order issued by the Government by Exhibit P4, purportedly with the intention of furthering the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan [2013 (1) KLT 755 (SC)], is challenged in the above writ petitions. While the petitioners assail Exhibit P4 as not being in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for brevity "KER") and being totally divorced from the issue dealt with and considered by the Supreme Court in Sneha Cheriyan; the learned Special Government Pleader seeks to sustain it on a complete reading of the Supreme Court judgment and the provisions of the KER.

3. According to Sri.P.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Exhibit P4 at best is in interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment which evidently, is a wrong interpretation. The petitioner is a Corporate Educational Agency under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), having established 102 aided schools within the State and has been functioning as a single unit for very many years. The controversy arose since Exhibit P4 made sub-rule (3) to Rule 7A applicable to vacancies arising in established posts; which fall vacant or are sanctioned in accordance with the staff strength during the course of an academic year. The obvious difficulty expressed by the petitioners is that they have 102 schools under them and the continuance of staff in each academic year is based on the staff fixation orders issued by the Department as per Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII KER. Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII KER mandates staff fixation orders to be passed on the basis of the student strength as on the 6th working day of an academic year. The staff fixation orders passed in a particular year are also declared to be applicable and in force till the 14th July of the next academic year; since it is contemplated by the Rule making authority itself that a staff fixation order based on the student strength on the 6th working day of the academic year could be finalised by the Department only by the 15th July of that academic year.

4. In the case of the petitioner, having around 102 schools, it is submitted that it is well-nigh impossible to anticipate vacancies which occur in the established posts and which would be sanctioned in the academic year at the commencement of the academic year itself. In fact, there was no dispute raised by the Government all these years and appointments were made after the staff fixation orders are received and the same were approved on regular scale of pay. It is also to be noticed that the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners assert that for the last three years no staff fixation orders have been passed by the Government. The petitioners in the other writ petition are Managers of individual schools in the aided sector.

5. For the smooth working of the school; in an academic year; when staff fixation order is received, especially in a Corporate Educational Agency, it has to first identify the excess hands in each of the schools who are to be accommodated in the established vacancies which arise in the other schools. After determination of the same, promotions as per Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A KER have to be carried out and then Rule 51A claimants are to be appointed to the vacancies in the established posts; as is disclosed from the staff fixation orders. Only after this exercise, could the Educational Agency go ahead in filling up the vacancies to the established posts. The time required for such exercise needs no elaboration.