Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

Initially, four writ petitions have been filed: one by the Manager (along with a teacher) of the School and the rest by three teachers. The issue is who, among those teachers, is a Lower Primary School Assistant (`LPSA') and who is an Upper Primary School Teacher (`UPSA'). With the threat of a UPSA getting retrenched looming large, the clamour to establish that each is an LPSA was intense.

2. A learned Single Judge rendered a common judgment in all the four writ petitions: The claim of the two teachers to be the LPSAs was upheld. The aggrieved two filed writ appeals. They have, however, chosen to file appeals in their own writ petitions, but not in those filed by the other teachers. It was despite the fact that they were parties to the other writ petitions and the findings in them were to their prejudice. Apart from the merits, a preliminary question, now, begs for an answer--Are these two writ appeals barred by the principles of res judicata?

3. As we resolve to determine the preliminary issue first and to consider the merits of the matter--if the lis could survive the preliminary objection--thereafter, we touch upon the factual controversy only to the extent necessary.

4. There are four protagonists to this litigation, one of them joined by the Manager of the School: (1) E. P.Sajithkumar, (2) Nisha M.Nair (both having a common cause); (3) K. Rajitha, and (4) E.V.Latha. We will take the pleadings of E.P.Sajithkumar in W.P. (C) No. 8287 of 2012 as the basis for our discussion.

Facts in Brief as Pleaded by E.P. Sajithkumar:

5. In Ackiparamba UP School, during the academic year 2002-03, the sanctioned posts were 14--9 UPSAs (Headmaster included) and 5 LPSAs. In 2002 one LPSA post and one UPSA post fell vacant owing to the retirement of two teachers. On 05.06.2002 E.P.Sajithkumar, a rule 51A claimant because of his earlier stint, was appointed as an `Assistant Teacher' in one of the retirement vacancies; Smt.Nisha M.Nair was appointed on 21.06.2002 in the other post. Sajithkumar claims to have been appointed as an LPSA. In 2005 a UPSA retired from the service and E.V.Latha was appointed on 01.06.2005 in that vacancy. Later, because of one retirement and one promotion, Smt.K. Rejitha was appointed a UPSA on 01.06.2007.

6. During the academic year 2008-2009, because of the diminished student strength, one LPSA post and two UPSA posts were reduced. Nevertheless, when the protection under 1:40 teacher-student ratio was extended, one LPSA post and one UPSA posts were retained. Still, the junior most UPSA was directed to be retrenched from the service for only one of the two UPSA posts could be retained.

7. The Assistant Education Officer (AEO) wrongly treated Sajithkumar's post as UPSA and those of Latha and Rejith as LPSA. Aggrieved, Sajithkumar filed a complaint before the authorities; consequently, the Deputy Director of Education (`DDE'), Kannur, conducted an enquiry and submitted the Exhibit P3 report in Sajithkumar's favour. DDE has suspected tampering of the records to Sajithkumar's prejudice: he was shown as a UPSA instead of an LPSA. The government, in turn, affirmed the DDE's report and issued Exhibit P4 order. It also directed the AEO to approve Sajithkumar's appointment as an LPSA. AEO, in fact, restored Sajithkumar's position as an LPSA through exhibit P2 order.

8. Before the Director of Public Instruction (DPI) Latha, the rival contender, filed a petition challenging Exhibit P4 Government Order. That apart, she has also filed W.P.C.No.27736/2010. While the writ petition was pending, she further filed Exhibit P7 complaint before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala, who forwarded it to the DPI. Acting on Exhibit P7 complaint, DPI passed Exhibit P8 order: The direction was to change Sajithkumar's category to UPSA. Aggrieved, Sajithkumar filed W.P.(C).No. 8287/2012 assailing Exhibit P8.

Government's Assertion:

9. General Education Department filed a counter affidavit--it is detailed and r