furnished in the counter-affidavit reflects the state of affairs during 2008-2009. As on 31-3-2010, many of the protected teachers might have retired from service. It is submitted that if the position as on 31 -3- 2010 is taken into account, the whole exercise made by the Government may prove to be futile. 46. It is also submitted that going by the Government Orders, protection is available to only those teachers who were appointed before 14-7-1997. The Petitioners apprehend that the idea behind the Government Order is to provide protection to teachers appointed after 14-7-1997 as well on the basis of the pressure exerted by the Teachers' Organisations. There is no material to presume that the intention of the Government is to do so. It is not necessary to consider this contention in these Original Petitions. I leave open the said contention. Point No. 10:

- 47. The Petitioners also raised a contention that if a Manager is compelled to appoint a protected teacher, his right under Rules 2, 3 and 6 (c) of Chapter XIV A of KER will be lost. Rule 2 provides that the appointment of qualified hands shall be deemed acting till they are confirmed. Rule 3 states that initial appointment of qualified teachers shall be on probation. Rule 6 (a) states that teachers appointed under Rule 3 shall be on probation for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. Rule 6 (c) provides that "if the work of the probationer is found to be unsatisfactory at any time before the expiry of the period of probation or where such period of probation is extended, the manager may, with the approval of the Educational Officer, by order either terminate the probation and discharge him from service or in case probation has not been extended, extend the period of probation after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him."

48. I do not think this contention merits acceptance. Even the first Government Order on protection of teachers, namely, GO. (Ms. ) No. 104/69 dated 6-3-1969 states that the lien of the retrenched teachers should be retained under the management of the aided schools in which they were working at the time of retrenchment. Protection would be available only to teachers who have two years' service. Therefore, declaration of probation of the teacher does not arise before, or vest in, the Manager of the aided school in which the retrenched teacher is deployed. Point No. 11: 49. The learned Advocate General raised a contention that as per the Government Order, the Managers were granted some advantages and at the same time, some obligations were also created. When advantages and obligations are provided by the same Order, the Managers cannot challenge the obligations and at the same time enjoy the advantages. The learned Advocate General submitted that in such circumstances, the Managers cannot invoke Article226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Rev. Kuriakose and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (s) (relevant portion is quoted while dealing with Point No. 7 above). I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General. Point No. 12: