Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in these original petitions are Managers of aided schools. They challenge a notification containing a final list of localities for starting new schools published by the 2nd respondent-Director of Public Instruction under R.2 (2), Chapter V, K. E. R. The above notification produced as Ext. P-2 in O.P. No. 2644 of 1979 includes a place called Pavumba not far away from the schools run by the petitioners as an area for an Upper Primary School. 2. According to the petitioners in pursuance of a decision taken in January 1979 for sanctioning new schools or for upgrading existing schools, the 1st respondent-State issued a notification on 201 1979 fixing a time schedule for taking steps for sanctioning new schools. The 2nd respondent-Director of Public Instruction on 22-1-1979 published in the Kerala Gazette the preliminary list under R.2 (2), Chapter V, K. E. R. inviting objections. The 2nd respondent issued the final list of areas for starting new schools under R.2(4) as per notification dated 11-4-1979 On 11-4-1979 itself the 2nd respondent issued another notification under R.2 (2) containing a preliminary list of areas. According to the petitioners, this was the result of political pressure. The petitioners objected to the preliminary list. But the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 22-6-1979 (Ext. P-2 in O. P. No. 2644 of 1979) containing the final list under R.2 (4). It was under the above circumstances that the petitioners approached this Court with these original petitions. 3. The 1st respondent has filed counter-affidavits in both cases justifying the publication of the second preliminary list and the finalisation of the same as per notification dated 22-6-1979. The allegation of political pressure is denied in the counter-affidavits. In Para.13 of the counter-affidavit in O. P. No. 2476 of 1977 it is contended that 'there is no express provision to prevent the 2nd respondent not to publish a second list'. In Para.9 of the counter-affidavit in O. P. 2644 of 1979 it is pointed out that an Upper Primary School was already sanctioned at Pavumba. 4. In Para.13 of the counter-affidavit in O. P. No. 2476 of 1977 it is contended that 'there is no express provision to prevent the 2nd respondent not to publish a second list'. In Para.9 of the counter-affidavit in O. P. 2644 of 1979 it is pointed out that an Upper Primary School was already sanctioned at Pavumba. 4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether R.2 Chapter V of the K. E. R. permits the issue of a second notification by the Director of Public Instruction with a supplementary preliminary list of localities for opening new schools and whether the Government have power to approve the same when it has already approved an earlier list submitted by the Director of Public Instruction. A further point whether the Government have power to sanction a school in a locality not included in the first list published under R.2(4) also arises for consideration. S.3(5) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 reads: "(5) After the commencement of this Act, the establishment of a new school or the opening of a higher class in any private school shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder and any school or higher class established or opened otherwise than in accordance with such provisions shall not be entitled to be recognised by the Government." Rule 2 Chapter V of the K.E.R, reads: "2. Procedure for determining the areas where new schools are to be opened or existing schools upgraded. (1) The Director may once in two years prepare a report indicating the locality where new schools of any or all grades are to be opened and existing Lower Primary Schools or Upper Primary Schools or both are to be upgraded. In preparing such a report, he shall take into consideration the following:- (2) The list prepared by the Director shall be published in the Gazette before the end of January of the year of publication, inviting objections or representations against such list (3) (4) Government after scrutinising all the records may approve the list, with or without modification and forward it to the Director within a month from the last date of the receipt of the recommendation of Director. The list shall be finalised before the end of July by the Government and shall be published by the Director. The list shall be finalised before the end of July by the Government and shall be published by the Director. (5) (6) Government may revise the dates fixed, if found necessary, and shall duly publish the fact in the Gazette." As per S.3(5) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, a new school can be established only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the K.E.R. As per the rules in Chapter V of the K.E.R, which provide for the opening and recognition of schools, before applications are to be called for new schools the localities where new schools are to be opened have to be determined. This is to be done under R.2. The scheme envisaged by R.2 does not permit publication of more than one preliminary list by the Director of Public Instruction under R.2(2). Not only that, under R.2(2) the preliminary list has to be published before the end of January. Under R.2(4) the Government have only power to approve a preliminary list published as per R.2(2) by the Director. As the Director has no power under R.2(2) either to publish a second preliminary list or any list after the end of January, the Government cannot approve such a list. Of course, the Government have power to revise the dates. But that has not been done in this case. So, the notification dated 22-6-1979 challenged in these original petitions is one issued without jurisdiction. As applications can be invited only to open a school in a locality determined as per R.2, in this case, the sanction of the new school was wrong and illegal. The person or the institution to whom the new school was sanctioned is not made a party. The sanction is also not challenged in these petitions. In view of this, the quashing of the notification issued under R.2(4) including Pavumba as a locality for opening a new school will only be a futile exercise. So, I am not quashing the same. No other relief can also be granted in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The original petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.