JUDGMENT K. K. Mathew, J. 1. The petitioners were supernumerary teachers in aided schools. They challenge the validity of the orders deputing them to Government Schools on a work arrangement basis. The orders are challenged for the reason that the proviso to R.55 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules does not authorise an educational authority to depute a supernumerary teacher from the school in which he was appointed to any other school except for the purpose of absorbing him in any vacancy in that school. 2. Rule 55 of Chap.14A provides as follows: "The number of permanent teachers under each category in the staff list of any school or in all the schools under one educational agency shall not exceed the aggregate number of sanctioned posts under that category in that school or in that unit as the case may be; and excess hands if any, based on the strength of the classes fixed in accordance with sub-r.(1) of R.12 of Chap.23 will be retrenched by throwing out the junior most hands with due regard however to the requirements of subjects in secondary schools. Provided that a person who was confirmed before the date of commencement of S.12 of the Act under orders of competent authority shall not be retrenched under this rule but will be treated as supernumerary and absorbed in the next earliest vacancy in that school or in any other aided or Government School as laid down in S.13." The proviso seems to be clear that teachers who have been confirmed before S.12 of the Kerala Education Act came into force should not be retrenched, but be treated as supernumeraries, and that they should be absorbed in the next vacancy either in that school, or in any other aided or government school. The proviso would not enable an educational authority to depute a supernumerary teacher to a Government school for any purpose other than that of absorbing him in that School. The orders impugned are clear that it is only on 'work arrangement basis' that the petitioners have been ordered to be deputed to the Government Schools. The orders provide that the petitioners will continue to hold their lien , rank and seniority in the aided schools, and that the pay and allowances will be drawn and disbursed by the Headmasters of the aided schools after obtaining the necessary certificate from the departmental schools. The orders provide that the petitioners will continue to hold their lien , rank and seniority in the aided schools, and that the pay and allowances will be drawn and disbursed by the Headmasters of the aided schools after obtaining the necessary certificate from the departmental schools. The provisions in the orders will show that the petitioners have not been deputed for the purpose of absorbing them in any vacancy in the Government Schools. In OP No. 3773/66 it was held that the proviso would not authorise the transfer by an educational authority of a protected teacher to a Government School. 3. Mr. Musthafa, appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the Government Schools under R.9(a)(i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and, therefore, the deputation of the petitioners to the Schools in question was authorised. He relied on G. O. MS 166/62/Edn dated 20-10-1962 in support of his contention. I do not think that the orders impugned would support this contention. The petitioners were not appointed in the Government Schools under R.9(a)(i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules by these orders. On the other hand, the orders would show that they were deputed to Government Schools only on work arrangement basis. I quash the orders deputing the petitioners to Government Schools and allow the writ petitions. In the circumstances of the cases, I make no order as to costs.