JUDGMENT George Vadakkel, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a probationary teacher™ in a school under the management of the 4th respondent as per Ext. P-1 order for the period 28th August 1972 to 30th March 1973 and again as such as per Ext. P-2 order for the period 4th June 1973 to 31st May 1974. Both these appointments were approved by the competent authority, viz., the Assistant Educational Officer, in the first instance up to the closing date of schools in 1972-73 and in the second instance up to 31st May 1974. She was again appointed as a permanent teacher in the school under the management of the 4th respondent from 1st June 1974 onwards in the vacancy of Smt. Mariamma Thomas who resigned on 21st July 1972. This appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, the 1st respondent herein, by endorsing thereon the appointment is approved as Temporary L.P.S A. with effect from 1st June 1974. This endorsement is dated 4th June 1974. 2. As per Ext. P-4 order dated 27th September 1974 the 2nd respondent, the District Educational Officer, finding fault for abolition of the shift system in Standard III in the school, after notice to the petitioner, and to the 4th respondent decided: In these circumstances one post of L.P.S.A. irregularly sanctioned by the Assistant Educational Officer by abolishing the shift system in his fixation of establishment order read as 1st paper above is reduced. The shift abolished in Standard III is restored. The affected teacher is to be treated as a protected teacher under the appropriate G.O., if eligible, for the same. The Assistant Educational Officer will forward the proposal for the absorption of the teacher as protected teacher if necessary. 3. Petitioner claims that she is a protected teacher entitled to be absorbed and posted in the nearest Government L.P.School as envisaged by Exts.P-5 to P-7 orders. She has submitted Ext. P-8 representations in that behalf before the 1st respondent. I do not therefore propose to a examine her case founded on Exts.P-5 to P-7 orders. However she is entitled for a direction for expeditious disposal of Ext. P-8 representations by the 1st respondent. I direct so. 1st respondent will dispose of Ext. P-8 representations within three months from today. 4. P-8 representations in that behalf before the 1st respondent. I do not therefore propose to a examine her case founded on Exts.P-5 to P-7 orders. However she is entitled for a direction for expeditious disposal of Ext. P-8 representations by the 1st respondent. I direct so. 1st respondent will dispose of Ext. P-8 representations within three months from today. 4. The only other question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction for disbursement by the respondents of her salary which admittedly has not been paid to her from September 1974 onwards. It is not disputed that the post reduced as per Ext. P-4 order has been sanctioned for the current year (1975-76) and that the petitioner is still working in the school. Petitioner has therefore to be paid her emoluments for the services she has rendered and is rendering as a teacher during the current year, for the post has been sanctioned and she is working in that post. This was not disputed before me by the learned Government Pleader. 5. The real controversy in this case is about payment of petitioner salary from 1974 September onwards in respect of her services during the academic year 1974-75. Sri Abraham Vakkanal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P-3 appointment of the petitioner as a permanent teacher in a permanent vacancy has to be deemed acting till she is confirmed in so far as she is beyond dispute a qualified hand; the learned counsel relies on rule 2 in Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 in support of the above submission. And, relying on rule 7 in that Chapter it is argued that in view of the approval of Ext. P-3 appointment by the 1st respondent, petitioners appointment became effective from the date on which she was admitted to duty. These submissions in my opinion are well founded. The next step in the argument is that the appointment which became effective shall continue to be so till that appointment is terminated validly and competently, or the approval is withdrawn under rules governing the, matter, if any. These submissions in my opinion are well founded. The next step in the argument is that the appointment which became effective shall continue to be so till that appointment is terminated validly and competently, or the approval is withdrawn under rules governing the, matter, if any. The point for determination in this case is whether the petitioner services were legally terminated by any competent authority or perhaps, whether the approval was withdrawn, for an authority who is conferred with power to approve could be assumed to have as well power to withdraw an approval given, but I need not consider this latter aspect any further in that no such case was advanced before me on behalf of the respondents. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to rule 8 (2) of Chapter XIV(A) which makes it obligatory on the part of the concerned Educational Officer to forward a copy of the order approving the appointment to the teacher through the manager and argued that if there be an order withdrawing the approval (assuming the same is permissible) such order should also be communicated to the teacher. I only need observe, without deciding, that the above submission appears Prima facie to be correct. 6. According to the learned Government Pleader Ext. P-4 order was passed by the 2nd respondent after notice to the manager and the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner should be fixed with the knowledge of the reduction of one post sanctioned as per the staff fixation order which was revised as per Ext. P-4 order, and that order would consequently operate as a termination order. The learned Government Pleader in support of the aforesaid contention relies on rules 51 and 55 of Chapter XIV (A) as also on rule 12 of Chapter XXIII. P-4 order, and that order would consequently operate as a termination order. The learned Government Pleader in support of the aforesaid contention relies on rules 51 and 55 of Chapter XIV (A) as also on rule 12 of Chapter XXIII. Rule 51 of Chapter XIV (A) provides that when a vacancy in any category of post terminates necessitating the relief of a teacher, senior hands shall ordinarily be retained in preference to junior hands; and rule 55 provides that 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 that excess hands, if any, based on the strength of the classes fixed in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 12 of Chapter XXIII will be retrenched by throwing out the junior-most hands with due regard to the matters made mention of therein. Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII is to the effect that the strength of teaching staff in each school shall be fixed by the Educational Officer in accordance with the general provisions stated earlier in that Chapter once a year after finalising the number of divisions based on the effective strength of the class as on the date referred to in that rule. The learned Government Pleader makes particular stress on the following sentence in rule 12 referred to above: The staff sanctioned by the competent authority during their previous year shall continue till the 14th of July of the succeeding year.� The conjoined effect of the provisions referred to above is that under rule ,12 (1) of Chapter XXIII the concerned authority will have to fix the strength of teaching staff in a school in the manner stated in that rule and that if the number of sanctioned staff is less than the total number of staff in the school, the senior-most shall ordinarily be retained� and the excess hands.....will be retrenched by throwing out the junior-most hands"�. These provisions, particularly the provision in rule 55 which requires throwing out the junior-most hands"� as also rule 51 which enables retrenchment of a senior hand in exceptional circumstances necessarily imply that there should be an order terminating the service of the junior-most or a senior hand as the case may be, that is to say, an order relieving that teacher from service. I do not think that founded on the aforesaid provisions any argument could be advanced that on fixation of the strength of teaching staff under rule 12 of Chapter XXIII, any teacher should walk out or go out despite the fact that that teacher services have not been terminated legally by an authority competent to do so. Reliance made by the learned Government Pleader on rule 12 of Chapter XXIII to which I have already adverted to does not in my opinion militate against what I said above. What the sentence in rule 12 emphasised by the learned Government Pleader says is that the staff sanctioned by the competent authority during the previous year shall continue till July of the succeeding year which in other words means, the fixation of strength of staff made during the previous year will continue to be in force till July of the succeeding year; I am afraid that that sentence has no reference to any particular individual teacher though by fixation of strength of staff under rule 12 referred to above one or more teachers may become excess, for, it still remains to be decided as to who is to be thrown out. And this is especially so in view of the fact that though the appointment of a teacher is subject to the conditions and limitations made mention of in the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules framed thereunder, still that is a contract of service; such a contract of service can come to an end only by resolution of that contract by terminating the services of the person appointed validly and legally under the provisions of the contract or statute or statutory rules as the case may be which would enable to do so. The learned Government Pleader also contended that in so far as the order Ext. The learned Government Pleader also contended that in so far as the order Ext. P-3 says that the appointment of the petitioner is subject to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder and such other rules or orders that may be issued by the Government or other competent authority, the petitioner should be deemed to have been out of service. I am not persuaded to accept the above argument. The condition in Ext. P-3 relied on by the learned Government Pleader on the other hand, in my view, implies that the petitioner appointment would be effective under rule 7 of Chapter XIV (A) and till orders have been passed by competent authority, her appointment would continue to be effective. No Government order (I am not sure whether the Government is a competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner) terminating the service of the petitioner has been brought to my notice; no such order passed by, any other authority competent to pass such order has been brought to my notice either. Therefore, I will have to proceed on the basis so far as the petitioner is concerned that she continued to be in service during the relevant period. 7. Mathew, J. (of this Court as he then was) in O.P. No 2719 of 1966 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner said with reference to rules 1 to 4 XIV (A) and rule 2 of Chapter XXI as they stood then that a qualified teacher whose appointment order said that the same would come into force from 15th June 1965"� without specifying the period for which the appointment was made should be deemed to have been appointed as acting teacher as contemplated by rule 1 of Chapter XIV (A) as it stood then. Rule 2 of that Chapter as obtained today which says that appointment of qualified hands shall be deemed acting till they are confirmed"� is the latter portion of rule 2 as it stood when Mathew, J. examined that rule in O.P.No 2719 of 1966 . Rule 2 of that Chapter as obtained today which says that appointment of qualified hands shall be deemed acting till they are confirmed"� is the latter portion of rule 2 as it stood when Mathew, J. examined that rule in O.P.No 2719 of 1966 . In the decision referred to above the earned Judge also said that the appointment in that case without specifying the period for which the teacher therein was appointed would not come to an end on the close of the year during which the teacher was appointed so long as the teacher services have not been legally terminated. This is what the learned Judge said:- I do not think that because the approval of the appointment by the D.E.O was only till the close of the year, the appointment itself was for that period. As I have already said, the petitioner must be deemed to have been appointed as "acting teacher, and the duration of at appointment was not till the close of the year in question and her services have not been legally terminated. "� (Underlining by me). In the instant case, even the approval was not, as is seen from Ext. P-3, limited to the close of the year as was the case the decision referred to above. In short, therefore, a qualified teacher who has been appointed and whose appointment has been approved by competent authority and whose appointment shall be effective from the date from which the teacher is admitted to duty would cease to be in service of the management only if that teacher services are legally terminated. 8. In short, therefore, a qualified teacher who has been appointed and whose appointment has been approved by competent authority and whose appointment shall be effective from the date from which the teacher is admitted to duty would cease to be in service of the management only if that teacher services are legally terminated. 8. In Vasudevan Namboodiri v. Sarojini Amma 1967 K.L.T. 653 Velu Pillai, J. on behalf of the Division Bench of this Court said with reference to section 9 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: A conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules shows, that the power of the manager, so far as it is relevant to the controversy, is to make the appointment and the duty to pay the salary on the appointment being approved is of the Government.� The appointment in question of the teacher has been as earlier mentioned approved by the 1st respondent who is the competent authority to do so; that appointment even now continues; at any rate that appointment has not come to an end, the same having not been terminated validly and legally by an authority competent to do so. The result is the petitioner would be entitled for her salary during the period she has worked. It is not disputed before me that she has worked during the period September 1974 onwards. The Government is, therefore, under section 9 of the Act bound to pay the petitioner her salary. 9. I make it clear that I have not decided the question as to the liability of the manager, the 4th respondent, to the 3rd respondent in respect of any amount that is payable to the petitioner by virtue of section 9 of the Kerala Education Act as explained in the decision of Velu Pillai, J. which I have referred to, in so far as I am not called upon to decide the same in these proceedings. 10. The result of the above discussion is, the petitioner is entitled to succeed so far as the first part of relief (b) is concerned. I, therefore, direct the respondents to disburse the salary of the petitioner from September 1974 onwards. The 4th respondent manager shall make appropriate steps in that behalf and the 3rd respondent through its officers; respondents Nos. The result of the above discussion is, the petitioner is entitled to succeed so far as the first part of relief (b) is concerned. I, therefore, direct the respondents to disburse the salary of the petitioner from September 1974 onwards. The 4th respondent manager shall make appropriate steps in that behalf and the 3rd respondent through its officers; respondents Nos. 1 and 2, shall disburse the salary due to the petitioner irrespective of the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be a protected teacher or not. The original petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. 11. I do not think that the decisions in O. P. Nos. 1771 of 1971 and 1132 of 1975 have any application to the facts of this case in so far as in those cases the concerned teacher was kept out of service illegally by the respective managers and the claim for disbursement of salary was made by the teacher in the aforesaid circumstances.