M. Ramakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala — 1968 DIGILAW 283 (KER)

JUDGMENT V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. These writ petitions related to the termination of service of teachers reemployed after their retirement at the then age of superannuation which was 55 -- and / or the directions issued by the Government educational authorities to the Managers of the Schools for such termination. The facts of these writ petitions may be noticed in the order in which they were argued before me. Save where expressly indicated, reference to the parties and to the exhibits, would be as in relation to the writ petition referred to. 1. In O. P. No. 1689 of 1967, the petitioner retired from Government Service 31-3-1965 and was reemployed as Headmaster in the Upper Primary School of which the 3rd respondent is the Manager, by Ext. P1 order dated 30th May 1966. The copy of the appointment order (Ext. P1) produced by the petitioner leaves blank the space to show the period upto which the appointment is to ensure. Ext. P3 dated 1-6-1967 is a copy of the registered notice of the Assistant Educational Officer to the Manager informing the latter that retired and reemployed teachers are not eligible to continue in service after 31-5-1967 and requesting the Manager to relieve such teachers with effect from the forenoon of 1-6-1967 and report the fact. No order of termination has followed. 2. The main ground taken in this and in the other writ petitions is that the directions issued by the Educational authorities and the terminations by the Management contravene the notifications issued by the Government of Kerala under the provisions of Chap.21 R.2, sub-r.(22) of the Kerala Education Rules, (K. E. R. for short) a copy of which has been produced as Ext. P2 in this writ petition. For the sake of convenience it will be referred to as Ext. P2 notification in the rest of this judgment. It reads as follows: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Education (J) Department Notification G. O. (P) No. 214/66 Edn Dated, Trivandrum, 6th May 1966 S. R. O. No. 198/66: Whereas in view of the opening of new schools and additional divisions in existing schools it is found that sufficient number of trained teachers are not likely to be available for appointment in aided schools for the year 1966-1967. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-r.(2) of R.2 in Chap.21 of the Kerala Education R.1959, the Government of Kerala hereby direct that trained teachers who have retired from Government or private schools but have not passed the age of 59 on 1st June 1966 may be appointed as teachers in aided schools for the school year 1966-67, provided that such retired persons may, if necessary be allowed to continue till they complete the age of 60 years without reappointment. Untrained teachers shall be appointed in aided Schools only if trained teachers, new or retired, are not available. The condition regarding age limit of 59 on the Ist June 1966 shall apply only in the case of fresh appointments. Those who continue may be allowed to remain in service until they complete 60 years of age. By order of the Governor K. N. Thankam, Asst. Secretary. "45911/Jl/65/Edn 6-5-1966 Government Memorandum Sub: Education - Appointment of retired teachers in aided schools during 1966-1967 Attention of the Director of Public Instruction is invited to the notification No. GO(P) 214/66 Edn. dated 6-5-1966 which allows reemployment of retired trained hands in aided schools for the school year 1966-1967. Though the notification permits the reemployment of retired trained hands in aided schools, the first preference for appointment as teachers in aided schools should be given to regular trained hands by advertisement of vacancies in approved dailies and by reference to employment exchange and then to retired trained hands. Untrained hands can be appointed only if regular trained hands and retired trained teachers are not available. This will safeguard the interests of the trained hands awaiting employment and at the same time reduce chances of appointment of untrained hands. The Director of Public Instruction will bring this to the notice of the Managements of aided Schools by issuing necessary circular instructions. Sd/- Education Secretary To The D. P. I. The arguments based on the above notification will be considered after noting the facts in the remaining writ petitions. 3. O. P. 1728 of 1967 is by the Manager of a High School in Koottungal, Chowghat. By Exts. Sd/- Education Secretary To The D. P. I. The arguments based on the above notification will be considered after noting the facts in the remaining writ petitions. 3. O. P. 1728 of 1967 is by the Manager of a High School in Koottungal, Chowghat. By Exts. P1 and P4 communications dated 10-5-1967 and 31-5-1967 from the District Educational Officer, Chowghai, the petitioner was informed that orders have been issued that the service of retired persons of Government and aided schools, reemployed in private schools, are to be dispensed with from the beginning of the academic year 1967-1968. Ext. P1 refers to G. O. (P) 176/67/Fin. dated 4-5-1967, a copy of which is Ext. P2. Ext. P3 is the same as Ext. P2 in O. P. 1689 of 1967. Ext. P5 is a copy of the Minutes of the Conference of the Regional Deputy Directors and the District Educational Officers, held in the office of the Director of Public Instruction on 26th May 1967. The same records that the services of retired persons of Government and aided schools reemployed in private schools are to be dispensed with at the beginning of the academic year 1967-68 and that the Managers and the controlling officers should be told that all these posts should be advertised for qualified hands, and that the retired and reemployed persons should, on no account, be retained. Nothing further has happened in this writ petition in pursuance of Ext. P4. 4. In O. P. No. 1859 of 1967, the petitioner is a teacher who retired in 196 and was appointed in the 1st respondent's School, as a School Assistant. Ext. P1 produced in this writ petition is the same as Ext. P2 in O. P. No. 1689 of 1967. Ext. P3 dated 15-6-1967 is the copy of a communication to the petitioner by the Manager It recalls a communication of the D. E. O. Cranganoor dated 9-6-1967 and state: that in response to the said communication, the petitioner and another, are thereby "noticed" regarding the termination of their services with effect from 1-6-1967 within 8 days of the receipt of the communication. 5. In O. P. No. 2328 of 1967, the petitioner is a retired D. E. O. He retired or 5-6-1966 and was thereafter appointed as Headmaster for a term of five years, Ext. 5. In O. P. No. 2328 of 1967, the petitioner is a retired D. E. O. He retired or 5-6-1966 and was thereafter appointed as Headmaster for a term of five years, Ext. P1 dated 30-5-1967 is a copy of the communication from the D. E. O. Tellicherry to the Managers of aided Schools and training schools, informing them that the reemployed retired teachers will not be allowed in aided Schools, in 1967-68, and if any retired teacher was then on the rolls of any of these schools, the Managers should relieve them forthwith. Ext. P2 dated 16-5-1967 is a copy of the communication from the D. E. O. to the Manager of the petitioner's School, drawing attention to Ext. P1 communication and asking the Manager to state how a retired teacher was still being allowed to continue, in spite of definite instructions. The Manager was informed that no communication signed by a retired reemployed headmaster will be entertained. Ext. P4 herein is the same as Ext. P2 in O. P. 1689 of 1967. No actual termination of the service of the retired reemployed teacher has followed. 6. In O. P. 2004 of 1967, the petitioner claims to be the Manager of a minority institution. Ext. P1 filed herein is the same as Ext. P2 in O. P. 1689 of 1967. By Ext. P2, the petitioner appointed a retired DEO as Headmaster of his School, from 1-6-1966 till the end of the School year 1968-69. Ext. P2 shows that the appointment was approved by the D. E. O. till the teacher completed the age of 60 years. By Ext. P4 communication from the D. E. O., the petitioner's attention was drawn to the G. O. (P) 176/67/Fin dated 4-5-1967 by which the age of compulsory retirement of Government employees was lowered from 58 to 55. The petitioner was informed that the service of the Headmaster who was a retired Government servant reemployed in the petitioner's school was to be dispensed with from the beginning of the academic year 1967-68 and the action was to be reported. The petitioner made Ext. P5 representation against this communication but the stand taken in Ext. P4 was reaffirmed by Ext. P6 communication from the District Educational Officer. No order of termination of the Headmaster's appointment has followed. 7. The petitioner made Ext. P5 representation against this communication but the stand taken in Ext. P4 was reaffirmed by Ext. P6 communication from the District Educational Officer. No order of termination of the Headmaster's appointment has followed. 7. In O. P. No. 2116 of 1967, the petitioner having retired on 27-4-1966 was appointed to the 3rd respondent's High School as a Headmaster by Ext. P1 order dated 7-12-1966. The copy of the order of appointment produced (Ext. P1) leaves blank the space which is to show the period up to which the appointment is to ensure. It also shows that the appointment was approved by the D. E. O. Malappuram with effect from 7-12-1966. Ext. P2 dated 31-5-1967 is a copy of a direction from the D. E. O. to the Manager of the School drawing attention to the G. O. 176/67/Fin dated 4-5-1967 and stating that in the light of the same, retired and reemployed teachers are not allowed to continue beyond 31-3-1967, and requesting the Manager to terminate the services of such persons in his school, atleast with effect from 1-6-67. Ext. P5 in this writ petition is the same as Ext. P2 in O. P. 1689 of 1967. No order of termination has followed. 8. In O. P. 2323 of 1967, the petitioner retired as Headmaster in Government service on 8-4-1964. He was reemployed in the 3rd petitioner's school, by Ext. P1 order, as Headmaster from 1-6-1964. Ext. P1 shows the appointment was approved, by the A.E.O. Irinjalakuda. By Ext. P2, a copy of the communication from the AEO to the 3rd respondent, the latter was informed that the DEO, Irinjalakuda, by a communication referred to, had asked the AEO to inform the Managers of the Private Schools that the services of retired persons of Government and aided schools, reemployed in private schools, are to be dispensed with at the beginning of the academic year 1967-1968. The 3rd respondent was requested to implement the order of the DEO in the case of the petitioner. By Ext. P3 communication dated 10-6-67 of the Manager to the petitioner, the petitioner's attention was called to Ext. P2 and the petitioner was directed to hand over charge to the senior assistant of the school. 9. O.P. 1847 of 1967. The petitioner is a teacher who retired on 31-3-1966, and was appointed as Headmaster by Ext. By Ext. P3 communication dated 10-6-67 of the Manager to the petitioner, the petitioner's attention was called to Ext. P2 and the petitioner was directed to hand over charge to the senior assistant of the school. 9. O.P. 1847 of 1967. The petitioner is a teacher who retired on 31-3-1966, and was appointed as Headmaster by Ext. P2 order dated 30-6-1966, from 1-7-1967, in the 3rd respondent's school. Ext. P2 shows that the appointment was approved from 18-10-1966 to 31-3-1967. In Para.6 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he has not so far been relieved from service nor has any order of termination been issued, but that he understood that the DEO has pressed the manager to terminate the petitioner's service. 10. O.P. 1952 of 1967: The petitioner retired as a teacher in Government service on 13-3-1963 and was reemployed as Headmaster of the 3rd respondent's School with effect from 1-6-1964 without specifying the duration of his appointment. By Ext. P4 communication from the Manager, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge to the person named in the communication within 24 hours. Ext. P4 also refers to the fact that the petitioner did not hand over charge to the person mentioned as required already by the 3rd respondent's memo, issued earlier. The petitioner has averred that Ext. P4 was in pursuance of a general circular of the DEO a copy of which is Ext. P3. 11. O. P. 1941 of 1967: The petitioner retired from Government service on 25-5-1965 and was appointed as Headmaster of the 3rd respondent's School till the attainment of the age of 60 years. Ext. P2 dated 15-5-1967 is a copy of the order promoting the petitioner to the 1st Grade Post with effect from 1-7-1966. Ext. P1 dated 26-5-1965 is a copy of an earlier notification under Chap.21, R.2 Sub-r.(2) of the Kerala Education Rules, in language identical with Ext. P2 in O. P. 1689 of 1967, the only difference being that it was issued mutatis mutandis with respect to the conditions for the academic year 1965-1966. By Ext. P3 communication dated 31-5-1967 from the DEO to the 3rd respondent the latter was informed that all teachers reemployed after retirement should finally retire on 31-5-1967. The 3rd respondent was therefore requested to relieve the teacher as the staff of his school on 31-5-1967 and report the fact. The 3rd respondent by Ext. By Ext. P3 communication dated 31-5-1967 from the DEO to the 3rd respondent the latter was informed that all teachers reemployed after retirement should finally retire on 31-5-1967. The 3rd respondent was therefore requested to relieve the teacher as the staff of his school on 31-5-1967 and report the fact. The 3rd respondent by Ext. P4 communication dated 2-6-1967 informed the petitioner, that he is relieved from service from the forenoon of the next day. 12. O. P. 1776 of 1967: The petitioner is a retired employee, reemployed as Headmaster, by Ext. P1 order dated 1-6-1965 in the 3rd respondent's School. The same shows that the appointment is to enure till the end of the School year 1968-1969 and was approved as temporary from 1-6-1965 till the petitioner completed the age of 60 years. By Ext. P3 communication dated 20-6-1967, from the AEO to the 3rd respondent, the latter was informed that the service of retired reemployed teachers should be dispensed with from 1-6-1967. The petitioner states that he has completed the age of 57 years. No order of termination has followed. 13. O. P. 1846 of 1967: The petitioner is a retired employee who was reappointed as acting teacher in the school of the 3rd respondent, by Ext. P1 order from 1966 till attainment of the age of 60 years. The appointment was approved till he completes the age of 60. The petitioner has stated in his writ petition, that he was appointed on 18th June 1964 as a Drill and Drawing Teacher for one year and again on 18th June 1965 for another year, and finally by Ext. P1 as noted above. There is no averment in the writ petition to show that the petitioner retired from Government Service. By Ext. P3 communication dated 1-6-1967 from the A.E.O. to the 3rd respondent the latter was directed to dispense with the service of retired reemployed teacher, with effect from 1-6-1967. 14. In O.P. 1948 of 1967 the petitioner retired on 25-5-1965 and was reemployed in the 3rd respondent's School by Ext. P2 order dated 1-6-1966. The term of the appointment is not seen from Ext. P2. Ext. P1 herein is a copy of the notification dated 26th May 1965, issued under Chap.21 R.2 of sub-r.(2) of the Kerala Education Rules (same as Ext. 1 in O.P. No. 1941 of 1967). P2 order dated 1-6-1966. The term of the appointment is not seen from Ext. P2. Ext. P1 herein is a copy of the notification dated 26th May 1965, issued under Chap.21 R.2 of sub-r.(2) of the Kerala Education Rules (same as Ext. 1 in O.P. No. 1941 of 1967). In Para.4 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that the AEO has directed the 3rd respondent to relieve the petitioner from service and that the 3rd respondent is taking steps to relieve the petitioner. The petitioner has not so far been relieved and no order of termination has followed. 15. In O.P. 2829 of 1967, the petitioner retired from service on 25-6-1966 and was reemployed in the 2nd respondent's school by Ext. P1 order dated 27-6-66 from that date. Ext. P1 shows that the space for showing the period upto which the appointment is to enure is left blank and that the appointment was approved from 27-6-1966. Ext. P3 herein is the same as Ext. P2 in O.P. 1689 of 1967. By Ext. P4 communication dated 29-5-1967 from the DEO to the Manager of private schools, the latter was informed that the continuance of retired teachers reemployed in the private schools could not be allowed after 1-6-1967, and that they should therefore be relieved by that date. The petitioner has alleged in Para.2 of the petition that he was actually relieved from the staff of the school. 16. In O.P. No. 2034 of 1967 the petitioner who is a retired employee was reemployed on 1-7-1966. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition shows that he is aged 57 on the 1st day of July 1967 Ext. P1 in this writ petition is the same as Ext. P2 in O.P. 1689 of 1967. Ext. P2 herein dated 14-7-1966 is an order of the DEO Ottapalam, approving the petitioner's appointment provisionally from 1-7-1966 till he attains the age of 60 years. Ext. P3 herein is the same as Ext. P5 in O.P. 1728 of 1967. No order of termination has actually followed. But the petitioner has alleged that the 3rd respondent is taking steps to relieve him in pursuance of Ext. P3. 17. In O.P. No. 1905 of 1967 the petitioner is the Manager of Arimpoor High School, Trichur Taluk. The present Headmaster in the school was appointed by the petitioner in January 1967. No order of termination has actually followed. But the petitioner has alleged that the 3rd respondent is taking steps to relieve him in pursuance of Ext. P3. 17. In O.P. No. 1905 of 1967 the petitioner is the Manager of Arimpoor High School, Trichur Taluk. The present Headmaster in the school was appointed by the petitioner in January 1967. In Para.6 of the petitioner's affidavit it is stated that the Headmaster of the School was reemployed after retirement. It is averred that the Headmaster's appointment was made on the basis of Ext. P3 G.O. dated 6.5.1966, which is the same as Ext. P2 in O.P. No. 1689 of 1967. Ext. P1 dated 31.5.1967 is a copy of the circular from the DEO to the Managers of all aided schools and training schools, informing them that the services of retired persons from Government and aided schools reemployed in private schools are to be dispensed with at the beginning of the academic year 1967-1968. No order of termination has been made in pursuance of the circular. 18. O.P. No. 1822 of 1967: The petitioner is a retired employee reemployed in the 3rd respondent's School, by Ext. P1 order dated 9-6-1964. The same shows that the appointment was approved as temporary. Ext. P2 dated 2.6.1964 is the statutory notification under Chap.21 R.2(2) of the Kerala Education Rules, issued by the Government with reference to the conditions for the academic year 1964-65 and otherwise in the same terms as Ext. P2 in O.P. 1689 of 1967. Ext. P3 dated 30-5-1967 is a copy of the communication by the AEO to the 3rd respondent drawing his attention to the instructions received that retired reemployed teachers should not be retained in service after 31.5.1967 and requesting the petitioner to relieve such teachers by 1.6.1967. Ext. P1 is the order of termination issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner has averred that the same was in pursuance of Ext. P3. 19. In O.P. No. 1949 of 1967 the petitioner is the Headmaster of the second respondent's School. He completed 55 years of age on 27.12.1964 and retired with effect from 31.3.1965 and was relieved on 3.6.1965. He was reemployed from 4.6.1965 in pursuance of the G.O. dated 26.5.1965 issued under Chap.21, R.2(2) of the Kerala Education Rules, a copy of which is Ext. P1 (same as Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 1941 of 1967). He completed 55 years of age on 27.12.1964 and retired with effect from 31.3.1965 and was relieved on 3.6.1965. He was reemployed from 4.6.1965 in pursuance of the G.O. dated 26.5.1965 issued under Chap.21, R.2(2) of the Kerala Education Rules, a copy of which is Ext. P1 (same as Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 1941 of 1967). Ext. P2 herein is the same as Ext. P2 in O.P. No. 1689 of 1967. Ext. P3 dated 1.6.1967 is a copy of the circular from the D.E.O. Irinjalakuda to the effect that the services of the retired reemployed teachers should be terminated from the beginning of the academic year 1966-67. A list of such employees furnished along with Ext. P3 included that of the petitioner also. No order of termination has actually followed. 20. In O.P. No. 2299 of 1967 the petitioner was a teacher in a Government School who retired on 21.4.65 and was reemployed on 29.6.1956 in the 1st respondent's School, as temporary teacher. The appointment is traced to Ext. P1 G.O. dated 6.5.1966 (same as Ext. P2 in O.P. 1689/67). Ext. P2 is a copy of the petitioner's order of appointment which shows that it was also approved from 1.7.1965. By Ext. P3 communication of the Manager, the petitioner was relieved from the staff of the school with effect from 1.6.1967. The same recites a communication from the office of the A.E.O. Alwaye dated 2.6.1967. 21. In O. P. No. 2284 of 1967 the petitioner is the Headmaster of the 1st respondent's School. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows his age as 56, and the petitioner has stated that he retired from Government service on 21.5.1966. Ext. P1 dated 7.6.1966 is a copy of the order of appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster from 7.6.1966. It shows that the appointment was approved by the Educational Officer, Hosdrug for the period from 7.6.1966 to 31.3.1967. Ext. P2 dated 16.8.1966 is a copy of the proceedings of the D.E.O. showing again that the petitioner's appointment as Headmaster was approved for the period from 7.6.1966 to 31.3.1967. Ext. P4 dated 1.6.1967 is a copy of the circular from the D.E.O. Kasaragod to the Managers of all schools informing that the services of retired reemployed teachers should be terminated at the beginning of the academic year 1967-1968. No order of termination has actually followed. 22. Ext. P4 dated 1.6.1967 is a copy of the circular from the D.E.O. Kasaragod to the Managers of all schools informing that the services of retired reemployed teachers should be terminated at the beginning of the academic year 1967-1968. No order of termination has actually followed. 22. In O.P. 2467 of 1967 the petitioner is the Headmaster of the 1st respondent's school. He retired from Government service on 31.3.1964. On 1.6.1964 he was appointed Headmaster in the 1st respondent's School for one year till 31.5.1965, He continued in service even after the expiry of this period and on 1-6-1966 was appointed as Headmaster, till he attained the age of 60 years. Ext. P1 is a copy of this order of appointment which shows that the same was approved by the D.E.O. Muvattupuzha. Ext. P2 is a copy of the proceedings of the D.E.O. which shows that the appointment was approved from 1.6.1966 till he attained the age of 60 years. Ext. P3 is a copy of the communication from the Manager to the petitioner informing him that in view of the G.O. (P)/176/67/Fin dated 4.5.1967 the petitioner has to retire from service of the school, from the forenoon of 12.6.1967, that he was therefore relieved from that day and requesting the petitioner to hand over charge of the school to the seniormost assistant. In Para.2 of his petition the petitioner has referred to a direction dated 19.6.1967 issued by the D.E.O. to the 1st respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner. This writ petition was submitted on 9.8.1967 and interim stay of Ext. P3 order was directed on the same day, and was made absolute on 6.10.1967. The petitioner has therefore continued in service so far. 23. The facts in these writ petitions having been stated I shall now proceed to consider the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel and by the learned Advocate General. Chap.27(A), R.8 of the K.E.R. as it now stands provides that the age of retirement on superannuation shall be 55 years. The present rule was substituted by a notification in the Gazette dated 1.8.1967 with effect from 4.5.1967. Previous to that, by a notification dated 16.7.1966, the age of retirement was raised to 58 years. Chap.21 R.2 of the Kerala Education Rules reads: "2. The present rule was substituted by a notification in the Gazette dated 1.8.1967 with effect from 4.5.1967. Previous to that, by a notification dated 16.7.1966, the age of retirement was raised to 58 years. Chap.21 R.2 of the Kerala Education Rules reads: "2. (1) Whenever a vacancy occur the Manager shall follow the directions issued by Government from time to time for ascertaining the availability of qualified hands. In case candidates with required qualifications are not available, the Manager, may, with the previous approval of the D.E.O. concerned, provisionally appoint from among the applicants, candidates whose qualifications conform to the greatest possible extent to the prescribed qualifications and who are proficient to teach the subject language, till qualified hands become available. The duration of the appointment of an unqualified hand shall in no case go beyond the school year in which appointment is made and availability of qualified hands shall be ascertained again and the approval of the D.E.O. obtained before the candidate is appointed again in the next school year. Candidates appointed as per this rule have no preferential claim for future appointment on this ground. However, in case qualified hands are not available, candidates who do not possess the prescribed qualifications and who are appointed under this rule shall be appointed in future vacancies in the school. (2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-r.(1) and R.3 if it is found in any year that sufficient number of trained teachers are not likely to be available for appointment in aided schools, Government, may by notification in the Gazette direct that trained teachers who have retired from Government or private schools and who have not attained the age of 59 may be appointed until such time as may be specified in the notification. Where such notification is in force the management shall be bound to appoint such retired persons who apply in preference to untrained teachers and untrained teachers shall be appointed only if such retired teachers are not available. (3) The appointment of teachers in schools managed by Panchayats may be made from among the candidates advised by the Employment Exchange. The appointment of unqualified hands made by the executive authority of a Panchayat may be approved on production of a letter from the Employment Officer to the effect that qualified hands are not available with the employment exchange at the time when the appointment was made". The appointment of unqualified hands made by the executive authority of a Panchayat may be approved on production of a letter from the Employment Officer to the effect that qualified hands are not available with the employment exchange at the time when the appointment was made". In pursuance of the powers vested under the above provisions, notifications have been issued from time to time by the Government. Some of them have been produced in these writ petitions. It is enough to refer to Ext. P2 produced in O.P.No. 1689 of 1967 and extracted earlier. The same allows teachers who had retired from Government or private schools and who had not passed the age of 59 on 1st June 1966, to be reemployed as teachers in aided schools for the year 1966-1967, and further provides that such persons may if necessary be allowed to continue till they complete the age of 60 years without reappointment. The petitioners in these writ petitions have traced their appointments to the statutory notification issued under the powers vested by Chap.21 R.2(2) above. Their case is that these notifications not having been superseded, their service are not liable to be terminated by, or in pursuance of, executive instructions issued by the educational authorities to the managers of the institutions concerned. In the counter affidavit, the Government have traced the action taken in these cases to certain Government orders that were issued reducing the age of superannuation, raised in 1966 to 58, back again to 55, and to contain policy decisions taken in the wake of these Government orders. The position so stated is briefly this. 24. By G.O. (P) 176/67/Fin dated 4.5.1967 (Ext. P2 in O.P. No. 1728 of 1967) the Government decided that the age of superannuation for its employees which then stood at 58 should be 55 years. (This has obviously no reference to teachers in aided institutions under private management such as the petitioners, and even in regard to teachers in Government institution whose age of superannuation was then 60 if stated that the matter will be considered separately). By G.O. (P) 328/67/Edn dated 25.7.1967 it was ordered that no teacher who had retired from Government or private school shall be reemployed in any aided School. A copy of the said G.O. has been produced as Ext. R1. along with the common counter affidavit Ext. By G.O. (P) 328/67/Edn dated 25.7.1967 it was ordered that no teacher who had retired from Government or private school shall be reemployed in any aided School. A copy of the said G.O. has been produced as Ext. R1. along with the common counter affidavit Ext. R1 and reads as follows: "Kerala Gazette No. 30 dated 1st August 1967 Part I Government of Kerala Abstract Education - Aided Schools - reemployed Teachers - Reemployment prohibited - orders issued Education (B) Department G.O. (P) 328/67/Fin Dated, Trivandrum 25th July 1967 Read again : 1. Notification (P) 214/66/Edn dated 5-6-1966. 2. G.O. (MS) 541/66 dated 18-10-1966 ORDER Consequent on the lowering of the age of compulsory retirement from 58 years to 55 years Government are pleased to order in supersession of the orders read as 2nd paper above, that no teacher who has retired from Government or private schools shall be reemployed in aided schools. Those who continue in service will be retired not later than the end of school year 1966-1967. The action of the Director of Public Instruction in having issued instruction to the above effect in anticipation of Government sanction is ratified. By order of the Governor Sd/- L. P. Achuthan Nair, Secretary. To The Director of Public Instruction The Regional Deputy Directors of Public Instruction. G. O. No. 327/67 dated 25-7-1967 referred to in the counter affidavit was also read out at the hearing. It refers to G.O. (P) 176/67 dated 4.5.1967 and states that the Government had made amendments to the K.E.R. reducing the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years. (The statement here is perhaps factually incorrect as the G.O. is dated 25.7.1967 and the amendment to Chap.27(A) R.8 of the K.E.R. was effected by notification dated 1.8.1967, no doubt with effect from 4.5.1967). My attention was not called to any of the amended provisions of the K.E.R. which would justify the directions complained in these writ petitions. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in view of the decision taken by the Government not to give reemployment or extension of services, the Director of Public Instruction at the conference of the District Educational officers and Regional Deputy Directors informed them that the services of retired persons are to be dispensed with at the end of the academic year 1967-68. The reference is presumably to what is evidenced by Ext. The reference is presumably to what is evidenced by Ext. P5 in O.P. No. 1728 of 1967 (a copy of which has been filed in some other writ petitions also), which has not been denied. Para.6 of the common counter affidavit Ext. R1 referring to Ext. R1 filed therewith, states that the same was in supersession of the G.O. MS 541/66, dated 18-10-1966. It was the said G.O., that raised the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 and permitted reemployment without advertisement of persons below 58 years. The same was read out before me. A reading of Ext. R1 extracted earlier shows that although the G.O.s dated 6.5.1966 and 18-10-1966 are recited as Nos. 1 and 2 therein, the paper read as No. 2 is expressly superseded. The wording disclosed a certain grammatical defect in referring to "orders" (in the plural) while superseding only one such, namely the paper second cited dated 18.10.1966. In order to clear up any possible mistake in the matter of publication of the notification, and to make sure if the draft sent for publication had actually superseded both the orders, an adjournment was granted. The learned Advocate General made available to me the relevant file leading to the issuance of Ext. R1, G. O. It is clear that there has not been any clerical or typographical error in the issuance of the notification and that Ext. P2 notification dated 6.5.1966 was not expressly superseded by G.O. (P) 328/67 dated 25.7.1967. At the resumed hearing after adjournment it was contended that Ext. P2 notification must be deemed to have at least been impliedly superseded. I cannot accept the argument. I am unable to spell out any implied supersession or repeal of a statutory notification from policy decisions or high level conferences of the Government or its officers. Such cannot be inferred either, from its being merely recited in Ext. R1 G.O. along with another, the latter of which alone is expressly superseded. The indication, in such circumstances, seems to be against implied supersession or repeal of Ext. P2 notification. Besides, from the narration of facts made, and the dates of the directions issued by the educational authorities, it would be seen that in most of these cases if not in all of them - the directions were before 25-7-1967. The indication, in such circumstances, seems to be against implied supersession or repeal of Ext. P2 notification. Besides, from the narration of facts made, and the dates of the directions issued by the educational authorities, it would be seen that in most of these cases if not in all of them - the directions were before 25-7-1967. The facts disclose that after the Govt.'s policy decision to reduce the age of superannuation, the directions by the educational authorities herein impugned, followed in such hot haste and with such breathlessness, that in many cases there was hardly any notice of termination, and in some, the termination was with retrospective effect. 25. The learned Advocate General raised the contention that having regard to the language of the Chap.21, R.2 sub-r.(2), Ext. P2 notification cannot enure beyond the period of the academic year 1966-67 and therefore should not be of any avail to the petitioners in these writ petitions. In support of the argument he relied also on the Government memorandum appended to Ext. P2 notification. These have been reproduced earlier. On the language of Chap.21 R.2(2), I cannot accept the contention that a notification issued in pursuance thereof cannot, under any circumstance, direct the re-entertainment in service of retired persons so as to enure beyond the period of the academic year for which it was issued. On terms of Ext. P2 notification again, I entertain no doubt that such was not its effect. It allowed reemployment of retired teachers for the year 1966-1967, and their continuance, if necessary, till they complete the age of 60 years, without reappointment. 26. The learned Advocate General contended that Ext. P2 notification is really beyond the scope of Chap.21 R.2(2) of the K.E.R. Such a plea has not been raised in the counter affidavit. If raised, whether the Government can be allowed to canvass the vires of the notification issued by itself, is doubtful. I am not persuaded either, that the notification is ultra vires Chap.21 R.2(2). I am of the opinion that the statutory notification(s) issued under Chap.21 R.2(2) of the K.E.R. under which the petitioner in these writ petitions have claimed their reemployment have not been superseded whether expressly or impliedly. 27. The question then arises: to what reliefs are the petitioners entitled? I am of the opinion that the statutory notification(s) issued under Chap.21 R.2(2) of the K.E.R. under which the petitioner in these writ petitions have claimed their reemployment have not been superseded whether expressly or impliedly. 27. The question then arises: to what reliefs are the petitioners entitled? The statutory notification(s) not having been superseded, and the Managers having exercised their powers in pursuance of the notification(s), the directions complained of, asking the Managers to apply the guillotine to the reemployed teachers amounts to an unwarranted interference with the Manager's powers. In some of these writ petitions, orders of termination have actually followed. In such cases, it seems to me that no writ or direction quashing the said order of termination can issue, as it would amount practically to specifically enforcing the contract of employment between the Manager and the teacher. Where there have been such orders of termination, the only relief which I would grant the petitioners, is to declare the directions from the educational authorities illegal, and leave the managers, if so advised, to re-entertain the petitioners in accordance with law. (That, of course, is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, if any, in other appropriate proceedings). There have been in my opinion such orders, of termination in O.P. No. 1859 of 196 (Ext. P2) O.P. No. 2323 of 1967 (Ext. P3) O.P. No. 1952 of 1967 (Ext. P4) O.P. No. 1941 of 1967 (Ext. P4), O. P. No. 2829 of 1967 (on express averment) O. P. No. 1822 of 1967 (Ext. P4) O.P. 2299 of 1967 (Ext. P3) and in O.P. No. 2467 of 1967 (Ext. P3). 28. In O.P. Nos. 1689, 1728, 2328, 2004, 2116, 1846, 1847, 1948, 2034 and 1905 of 1967 there have been no orders of termination. The orders and directions issued by the Educational Authorities and Circulars issued by them calling upon the Managers to terminate the appointment of the teachers, f or directing action for the said purpose are clearly illegal. I declare accordingly and quash these orders and directions. They are, Ext. P3 in O.P. 1689 of 1967, Ext. P1, P4 and P5 in O.P. 1728/67, the communication referred to in Ext. P2 in O.P. 1859 of 1967, Ext. P1 and P2 in O.P. 2328 of 1967, Exs. P4 and P6 in O.P. 2004/67, Ext. P2 in O.P. 2116/67 Ext. P2 in O.P. 2323/67 Ext. They are, Ext. P3 in O.P. 1689 of 1967, Ext. P1, P4 and P5 in O.P. 1728/67, the communication referred to in Ext. P2 in O.P. 1859 of 1967, Ext. P1 and P2 in O.P. 2328 of 1967, Exs. P4 and P6 in O.P. 2004/67, Ext. P2 in O.P. 2116/67 Ext. P2 in O.P. 2323/67 Ext. P3 in O.P. 1952/67, Ext. P3 in O.P. 1941 of 1967, Ext. P3 in O.P. 1776/67, Ext. P3 in O.P. 1846/67, Ext. P4 in O.P. 2829/67 Ext. P3 in O.P. 2034/67 Ext. P1 in O.P. 1905/67 Ext. P3 in OP 1822/67, Ext. P3 in OP 1949/67, the communication referred to in Ext. P3 in O.P. 2299 of 1967, and Ext. P4 in O.P. 2284/67. I make it clear that any directions and orders not specifically noticed in these writ petitions, would also be deemed to have been comprehended within the scope of the relief granted hereby (e.g. the direction referred to in Para.4 of O.P. 1948/67 and the directions referred to in Para.2 of O.P. No. 2467 of 1967). 29. In O.P. No. 1847 of 1967 there is no order of termination or has any express direction by the Government Educational Authorities been brought to my notice. There is only a general averment that the petitioner understood that the DEO has pressed the Manager to terminate the petitioner's service. This is too vague a statement on the basis of which any relief of quashing any direction issued by the Educational Authorities can be granted. In the light of the law declared in the connected writ petitions, such a relief is unnecessary. The petitioner's service not having so far been terminated the Manager can well be expected to act in accordance with the law declared, in these writ petitions, O.P. No. 1847 of 1967 is therefore dismissed. 30. These original Petitions are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs in any of these writ petitions.