IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 8094 of 2007(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHELVY P.S., PULLARKKAT HOUSE, MUTHAKUNNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM-1. 2. THE MANAGER, SNM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, MOOTHAKUNNAM. 3. K.S.SANDHYA, HSST(MATHS), SNM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOOTHAKUNNAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.DINESH R.SHENOY. R3 BY ADV. MR.M.V.BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON 21/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8094 of 2007(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE G.O.NO.167/98/G.EDN. DATED 13/05/1998. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 22/09/1998 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/1999. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/08/1998. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE G.O.NO.145/2000/H.S.EDN. DATED 05/10/2000. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 15/10/2001. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 25/11/2000. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 05/09/2002. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2002. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE G.O.DATED 04/07/2004. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 04/07/2004. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 25/01/2005. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/01/2004. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 21604/2004 DATED 28/03/2006. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 1080/2006 DATED 23/06/2006. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/07/2006. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 22957/2006 DATED 08/11/2006. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/02/2007. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06/03/1999 ORDER NO.2/3045/HSE/99. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2000-2001, ORDER NO.A1/20587/2001 HSE DATED NIL BY R1. (P.T.O.) WP(C).No. 8094 of 2007(L) EXT.P21: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.367/01/G.EDN. DATED 17/12/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 21/05/1998 OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 12716/1998 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 05/10/2000. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/02/1996-G.O.(MS)NO.30/96/H.EDN. EXT.R3(d): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.171/97/H.EDN. DATED 08/12/1997. EXT.R3(e): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(f): COPY OF THE OPTION DATED 13/10/2000. EXT.R3(g): COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13/10/2000. EXT.R3(h): COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(i): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 11/09/1998 FROM MANAGER, S.N.M.H.S.S. EXT.R3(j): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/09/1998 SENT TO MANAGER, S.N.M. COLLEGE. EXT.R3(k): COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES DATED 25/07/2006. EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/02/2004 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, HSE. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 20/03/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 24/04/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/07/2004 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(l): COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 22/09/1998. EXT.R3(m): COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGER IN WP(C) NO. 38220/2001. EXT.R3(l) IN I.A.9348/2009: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.75/09/DATED 01/07/2009. (P.T.O.) WP(C).No. 8094 of 2007(L) EXT.R3(m) IN I.A.9348/2009: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(n) IN I.A.9348/2009: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF APPOINTMENT CHART. EXT.R3(o): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 03/07/1996 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER SNM COLLEGE, MALIANKARA IN FAVOUR OF SMT.SANDHIA K.S. EXT.R3(p): COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01/09/2000 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER SNM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOOTHAKUNNAM, IN FAVOUR OF MISS.RAKHY K.SHAHEED. EXT.R3(q): COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL OF K.S.SANDHYA DATED 13/09/2006 BY THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION. EXT.R3(r): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ESTT.D4-30238/98/COLL. EDN. DATED 17/07/1998. EXT.R3(s): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER TO THE DIRECTOR. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 8094 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st August, 2009. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, two teachers, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, are fighting for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Mathematics) in an aided school, viz. S.N.M. Higher Secondary School, Moothakunnan, of which the 2nd respondent is the manager. The fight started a decade ago when the petitioner was appointed to the post by direct recruitment, which was challenged by the 3rd respondent, who was a Junior Lecturer in an aided college belonging to the same management, who lost the job on account of de-linking of pre-degree from colleges, on the ground that as per Government Orders on the subject, she was eligible to be re- deployed to the higher secondary school of the same management. Pursuant to a common judgment in two writ petitions filed by the two claimants, the Director of Higher Secondary Education considered the rival claims and decided that the 3rd respondent is the rightful claimant, pursuant to which the 3rd respondent replaced the petitioner and she is presently holding the post. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner also has now secured appointment as an HSST through Public Service Commission. The history of the case in brief is as under. 2. Pursuant to Ext. P1 Government Order dated 13-5-1998, among others, a vacancy of HSST (Mathematics) was sanctioned in the S.N.M. Higher Secondary School, Moothakunnam. The 2nd respondent-Manager resorted to direct recruitment for the post and the petitioner was selected and appointed by Ext. P2 order dated 22-9-1998, which was approved provisionally subject to further orders in the case pending in the Supreme Court with regard to appointments of Higher Secondary School Teachers in Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala, by Ext. P3 order dated 22-7-1999 of the W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 2 :- 1st respondent-Director of Higher Secondary Education. Prior to the appointment of the petitioner , one Junior Lecturer in Mathematics in S.N.M. College, Maliankara, an aided college under the same educational agency, by name Smt. Jyothilekshmi, filed O.P. No. 12716/1998 before this Court, challenging Ext. P2 order permitting filling up of 75% vacancies in Higher Secondary Schools by direct recruitment and claiming deployment to the school. In that, this Court passed an interim order dated 9-9-1998 to the effect that appointment of HSST (Mathematics) in the 2nd respondent's school will be provisional and subject to the result of the original petition. Therefore, in Ext. P2 order, it was specifically stated that the petitioner's appointment was provisional and subject to the result of that original petition. Even prior to the appointment of the petitioner, the Government had, by Ext. P4 dated 29-8-1998, directed that Junior Lecturers in private colleges will be posted in the Higher Secondary Schools of the same management and such managements will proceed with direct recruitment of teachers in Plus Two courses only after eligible lecturers under that management are accommodated. By Ext. P5 Government Order dated 5-10-2000, the Government prescribed the modalities for deployment of Junior Lecturers to Higher Secondary Schools, as per which the lecturers were to give options on the basis of which a list of lecturers to be deployed was to be prepared. Pursuant thereto, as per Ext. P6 order dated 15-10-2001, a list of 156 Junior Lecturers were prepared for such deployment. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had not submitted her option and her name was not included in the list so prepared. In O.P.No. 12716/1998, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to appoint Smt. Jyothilekshmy to one of the available vacancies. Pursuant thereto, she was appointed in the school as HSST (Maths) on 25-7-2002. In the meanwhile, on 14-11-2000, the Supreme Court in W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 3 :- M.M. Dolichan v. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 151, while directing the Government to frame rules regarding appointment of Higher Secondary School Teachers, issued further directions, one of which was that if there has been any appointment made pursuant to Ext. P1 Government Order dated 13-5-1998 as on the date of that judgment, those appointments would continue and would not be annulled. In terms of that judgment, the Government issued Ext. P7 order dated 25-11-2000, wherein also it was stipulated that any appointment made in pursuance to the Government Order dated 13-5- 1998 and continuing as on the date of judgment of the Supreme Court would be regularised. Subsequently, by Ext. P9 order dated 5- 12-2002, the appointment of the petitioner was approved subject to the conditions mentioned therein, one of which was that the approval is subject to deployment of qualified Junior Lecturers, if any, under the management. However, by Exts. P10 and P11 orders dated 4-7- 2004, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent-Manager to terminate the service of the petitioner and to appoint the 3rd respondent in her place, in recognition of her claim for deployment. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P(C) No. 21604/2004 and obtained an interim order dated 22-7-2004 for considering her explanation in the matter. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, pursuant to the said interim order, by Ext. P12 order dated 25-1-2005, the Director again directed the Manager to terminate the services of the petitioner and to appoint the 3rd respondent in her place. The petitioner challenged that order also by amending W.P(C) No. 21604/2004. Subsequently, that writ petition was heard along with O.P.No. 38220/2001 filed by the 3rd respondent and by Ext. P14 common judgment dated 28-3-2006, the said order was quashed and the 1st respondent was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and the 3rd W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 4 :- respondent. The 3rd respondent challenged the same in W.A.No.1080/2006, but the Division Bench, by Ext. P15 judgment, dismissed the same upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the same, the Dy. Director passed Ext. P16 order dated 31-7-20065, again upholding the claim of the 3rd respondent. That was again challenged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that by Ext. P14 judgment, the Director was to pass orders and the order was passed by the Deputy Director. By Ext. P17 judgment, Ext. P16 was quashed and the 1st respondent was directed to pass orders. Pursuant to the same, the Director passed Ext. P18 order dated 13-2-2007, again upholding the claim of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P 18 and quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as HSST (Maths), SNM Higher Secondary School, Moothakunnam, w.e.f. The date of her termination and further direct the 1st respondent to approve the said appointment with full back benefits from the date of the termination.” 2. The petitioner raises four contentions. The first is that in view of the Supreme Court decision in Dolichan's case (supra), the petitioner's appointment being one made pursuant to Government Order dated 13-5-1998, the same could not have been annulled for any reason. Secondly, she would contend that a pass in the State Eligibility Test (SET) being an essential qualification for appointment as a Higher Secondary School Teacher, which the 3rd respondent does not possess even today and which qualification, the petitioner possesses, the 3rd respondent could not validly replace the petitioner. The third is that since the 3rd respondent failed to exercise her option W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 5 :- for being deployed to Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to Ext. P5 Government Order, she lost her right and therefore she could not have pressed her claim for deployment thereafter. Lastly, she would contend that the 3rd respondent having slept over her rights for 5 years from 1998 when the petitioner was appointed, she must be non- suited for the unexplained delay and laches. 3. Both the 1st and 3rd respondents have filed counter affidavits supporting the impugned order. Their contention is that the appointment of the petitioner overlooking the superior claim of the 3rd respondent is void ab initio. According to them, the Government had, as early as on 17-7-1998, by Ext. R3(r) Circular no. Esst. D4.30238/98/Coll. Edn. directed all private college managements to re-deploy the Junior Lecturers appointed by them in colleges and approved by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education concerned in 10+2 schools under their control in terms of para 2(iii) of G.O.(MS) No. 171/97/H. Edn. dated 8-12-1997. This was followed up by Ext. P4 order dated 29-8-1998 directing that Junior Lecturers in Private Colleges will be posted in the Higher Secondary Schools of the same management. The petitioner's appointment on 22-9-1998, subsequent to those Government directions, was clearly unsustainable and therefore liable to be cancelled when the 3rd respondent claimed re- deployment. Even before the appointment of the petitioner, Smt. Jyothilekshmy had in O.P.No. 12716/1998 obtained an interim order to the effect that any appointments made to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher in the 2nd respondent's school would be subject to the result of the original petition, which has been so made clear in Ext. P2 appointment order issued to the petitioner. It is also made clear in Ext. P2 that the appointment is subject to Government Order dated 13-5-1998 and such other rules or orders issued from time to time by the Government or other competent authority. They W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 6 :- point out that in Ext. P3, it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was approved on the basis of a declaration of the 2nd respondent-Manager to the effect that he has observed all the Government Orders in force, while appointing the Higher Secondary School Teachers in the school. That approval itself was purely on provisional basis. In Ext. P9 regular approval dated 5-12-2002 granted to the petitioner also the same was made subject to deployment of qualified Junior Lecturers, if any, under the management. The 3rd respondent would submit that when the 3rd respondent learnt about the interview for selection of teachers to be conducted by the 2nd respondent, her claim for re-deployment was asserted by Ext. R3(j) letter dated 15-9-1998. According to her, pursuant to Ext. P5, she had submitted Ext. R3(f) option, which was submitted through the Principal of the college. An advance copy of the same was also forwarded to the 1st respondent under cover of Ext. R3(g) letter dated 13-10-2000, for which she had received Ext. R3(h) postal acknowledgment. The 3rd respondent submits that by Ext. R3(b) judgment dated 5-10-2000 in O.P.No. 12716/1998 filed by Smt. Jyothilekshmy, this Court directed that she be absorbed against available vacancy of Higher Secondary Teachers. Therefore, since the petitioner was appointed pending that writ petition, the Manager ought to have replaced the petitioner with Smt. Jyothilekshmy. But, the manager appointed Smt. Jyothilekshmy on 25-7-2002 in the vacancy which arose on 28-6-2000, replacing another teacher appointed in the meanwhile. The 3rd respondent would therefore submit that the Manager ought to have accommodated Smt. Jyothilekshmy replacing the petitioner and appointed the petitioner in the vacancy which arose on 28-6-2000. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is not qualified to be appointed for want of SET qualification, the 3rd respondent would contend that W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 7 :- the Government had, by G.O.(MS) No. 367/2001/G. Edn. dated 17-12- 2001, clarified that all the teachers appointed on regular basis prior to 14-11-2000 will be exempted from the acquisition of State Eligibility Test qualification, which exemption should be made applicable to her also since the vacancy to which the petitioner had a claim arose on 28-6-2000, prior to 14-11-2000. The Supreme Court judgment in Dolichan's case (supra) does not authorise continuation of illegal appointments violating legal claims of other teachers and only where there is no person having superior claims than the persons appointed, such appointment can be continued, is the contention of the 3rd respondent. According to her, the 3rd respondent was prosecuting her claim diligently and she cannot be accused of delay and laches since the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed should have gone to Smt. Jyothilekshmy, who was prosecuting her claim by filing O.P.No. 12716/1998 even before the appointment of the petitioner, which appointment made was subject to the result of the writ petition. The approval of the petitioner's appointment was subject to deployment of Junior Lecturers. The vacancy to which the 3rd respondent could seek deployment arose only on 28-6-2000 and she submitted Ext. R3(f) option on 13-10-2000 and filed O.P.No. 38220/2001. The 1st respondent would contend that the Manager secured approval of the appointment by a false declaration that there is no person awaiting deployment and the petitioner's appointment being supported by a false declaration is clearly unsustainable. 4. The 2nd respondent-Manager would support the petitioner in all her contentions. According to him, Ext.4 Government Order directing deployment of Junior Lecturers was not published or circulated until much later and therefore he was not aware of the requirement of deploying Junior Lecturers. He would deny having W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 8 :- received Ext. R3(j) and would submit that the 3rd respondent did not submit a request for re-deployment till she filed Ext. R3(f) option in 2000, prior to which Ext. P7 lawyer notice claiming salary in the post of Junior Lecturer only was received. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent cannot feign ignorance about the requirement of re-deploying Junior Lecturers in the vacancies of Higher Secondary School Teachers. Even before the appointment of the petitioner on 22-9-1998, Ext. P4 Government Order dated 29-8-1998 was issued. Even prior to that, Ext. R3(r) circular dated 17-7-1978 was issued directing all Private College Managements to redeploy Junior Lecturers in 10+2 schools under their control in terms of para 2(iii) of G.O.(MS) No. 171/97/H. Edn. dated 8-12-1997, wherein it has been stated that Junior Lecturers will be transferred to Higher Secondary Schools, when Pre-degree is de- linked. The 2nd respondent claims to be unaware of only Ext. P4, which itself is unconvincing, and not Ext. R3(r). Apart from that even if he was unaware of Ext. P4 when the petitioner was appointed, he cannot feign ignorance of the same when the second vacancy arose on 28-6- 2000 two years later. In Ext. R3(b) judgment of this Court in O.P.No. 12716/1998 filed by Smt. Jyothilekshmy, Ext. P4 was marked as Ext. P10. Although there is a contention that Ext. P10 in that writ petition was produced later, she should have been alerted of the requirement of deploying Junior Lecturers even before appointment of the petitioner since the said writ petition was filed before the appointment of the petitioner. Further, in Ext. P3 provisional approval dated 22-7-1999 of the petitioner's appointment, it is stated that the Manager had submitted a declaration that he had observed all the Government Orders in force while appointing the Higher Secondary School Teachers in the school. Ext. P9 further approval W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 9 :- dated 3-12-2002 was also subject to deployment of qualified Junior Lecturers, if any, under the management. Therefore, all along, and even when the 3rd respondent filed O.P. No. 38220/2001, the appointment of the petitioner was only provisional and therefore the 3rd respondent cannot be accused of the delay and laches, as claimed by the petitioner. From the materials before me, I am unable to hold that the 3rd respondent was not prosecuting her claim with reasonable diligence. 7. As far as the contention of the petitioner based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolichan's case is concerned, certainly, there is a direction therein that “if there has been any appointment pursuant to the Government Order of 13-5-1998, as on today those appointments also would continue and will not be annulled.” But that direction should be construed in the context of the facts in the appeals in which that judgment was rendered. The context therein was a dispute between management and the Government regarding appointments in Higher Secondary Schools. That direction cannot be taken as encompassing all appointments legal and illegal even if the same is in violation of all other Government Orders. That direction cannot set at rest inter se disputes between teachers for appointment in Higher Secondary Schools, which were pending at that time. Therefore, that direction should be read in the context of the disputes involved in the cases before the Supreme Court and must be taken to be a direction for approval of the appointments notwithstanding the objections which were the subject matter of those cases and not a universal direction overriding all objections and all rival claims of other eligible persons. In any event, the petitioner, the manager and the 3rd respondent were not parties to that judgment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner on the basis of the said direction in the W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 10 :- judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolichan's case (supra). 8. The next question is whether the 3rd respondent could be denied appointment on the ground that she does not possess SET qualification. It is true that the Government had, by G.O.(MS) 341/99/G.Edn. Dated 30-12-1999, made SET qualification as essential for all Higher Secondary School Teachers appointed after the academic year 1995-96. But, in that Government Order itself, as an interim measure, appointments to Higher Secondary Schools during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 of persons having the required educational qualifications were permitted subject to the condition that such candidate should pass SET within a period of two years from the date of appointment. In this case, the vacancy to which the 3rd respondent had a claim for deployment arose on 28-6-2000. By virtue of the above Government Order, the 3rd respondent was entitled to deployment subject to her passing SET within 2 years. Later, by G.O. (MS) No. 367/2001/G.Edn dated 17-12-2001, the Government clarified that all teachers appointed on regular basis prior to 14-11- 2000 will be exempted from SET qualification for being appointed as HSST in view of the Supreme Court judgment. Had the Manager given Smt. Jyothilekshmy and the 3rd respondent appointments in the two vacancies as and when the vacancies arose, which they were rightfully entitled to, the 3rd respondent would have been entitled to appointment and that exemption. That benefit cannot be denied to the 3rd respondent because the Manager illegally denied her the appointment, which she was entitled to. I am of opinion that since the 3rd respondent was legally entitled to deployment to the vacancy which arose on 28-6-2000, the 3rd respondent's eligibility has to be decided retrospectively from that date only. Since as on that date, the petitioner was legally entitled to appointment and exemption from SET qualification, when her right is recognised retrospectively from W.P.C. No. 8094/2007 -: 11 :- that date, she cannot be denied appointment on the ground that after 14-11-2000 onwards SET qualification was made mandatory. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that since the 3rd respondent did not possess SET qualification, the impugned order is vitiated. 9. I have already found that as evidenced by Exts.R3(f), R3(g) and R3(h), the 3rd respondent had exercised option to be deployed in Higher Secondary Schools. Even otherwise, the Manager could not escape from the liability to deploy Junior Lecturers as HSST, on the ground that they did not exercise option pursuant to Ext. P5. Ext. P5 is only a general order, under which options were called for from teachers of educational agencies who had Higher Secondary Schools under their control or not so that they could be deployed to Government Higher Secondary Schools and other aided Higher Secondary Schools. That would not absolve the Managers of colleges who have Higher Secondary Schools from their liability to deploy Junior Lecturers in their colleges to Higher Secondary Schools under their control as per the direction in Ext. P4 and earlier circulars and Government Orders. In fact, Ext. P5 was issued only on 5-10-2000 after the vacancy to which the