Antony Dominic, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the sixth respondent in the Writ Petition. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge had quashed Exts.P5, P6 and P7 on the ground that the power of revision available to the Government under R.93 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as "K.E.R.") was only in respect of original orders. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the appellant has come up in appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.

2. Before we deal with the controversy, requiring to be resolved, we may notice the facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal.

3. The sixth respondent in the Writ Petition was appointed in a leave vacancy of H.S.A. (Maths) for the period from 6.10.1997 to 11.12.1997 in the V.P. Oriental High School, Chokli of which the fifth respondent is the Manager. The appointment was also approved by the Educational Authorities. Being a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R., he was appointed in a permanent vacancy of H.S.A.(Maths) with effect from 1.6.1998, in a retirement vacancy that arose on 31.3.1998. In Ext.P8 dated 10.8.1998, the staff fixation order for 1998- 99, there was reduction of one H.S.A. (Core subject) and the Teacher, who was working against the post was ordered to be absorbed against the retirement vacancy of H.S.A.(Maths), to which the sixth respondent was appointed. Consequently, when the fifth respondent Manager sought approval of the appointment of the sixth respondent that was declined by the fourth respondent - District Educational Officer, for want of sanctioned post, as per Ext.P9 dated 11.9.1998. The Manager filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, the third respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P10. From Ext.P10, it is evident that for the period 1997-98 the number of sanctioned post of H.S.A. (Maths) was four and three Teachers were working, while for H.S.A. (S.S.) against four sanctioned post, four Teachers were working. In 1998-99. when the sanctioned post of H.S.A. (Maths) continued to be four, the number of Teachers working was reduced to two while as against H.S.A. (S.S.), though the sanctioned post was reduced to three, four teachers were working against three posts, which was obviously due to the absorption of one H.S.A.(S.S.).who was rendered surplus against the retirement vacancy of H.S.A.(Maths). Further, Ext.P10 also discloses the following:

"Due to reduction of strength one post of HSA (Core subject) ie. H.S.A. (SS) was reduced during 98-99 - one teacher namely Sri. CC.Ramakrishnan HSA (Maths) retired on the AN of 31.3.98 and hence there is no retrenchment during 98-99. But there is a deficiency of 2 H.S.A. (Maths) as per revised subject ratio 1:1:1 as ordered in circular No.H2-54419/94 dt. 10.2.95 of the Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum. But the Government order has clearly clarified that no fresh appointments can be made for the sole purpose of introducing 1:1:1 ratio. Hence, the action of the Manager in having filled up the retirement vacancy of H.S.A. (Maths) during 98-99 is highly irregular as there is no sanctioned post to accommodate the teacher."

4. The manager pursued the matter by filing revision which was rejected by Ext.P11 order of the second respondent and a representation that is stated to have been filed by the sixth respondent was also rejected by Ext.P12 order issued by the first respondent - Government. It would appear that the sixth respondent still persisted in getting his appointment approved and continued to represent the matter to the first respondent. Ultimately, his attempts yielded result, when the first respondent issued Ext.P5 directing the approval of the appointment of the sixth respondent in the retirement vacancy of H.S.A. (Maths) with effect from 1.6.1998, limiting the post of H.S.A. (Core subject) to 11, it was also ordered that the excess H.S.A. (S.S.) will either be re