Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was appointed a teacher in the Muslim High School for Boys, Kaniyapuram on June 6, 1955 and after 3 years, of service in the U.P.S.A he was promoted as High School Assistant in 1958. While so he opted to be governed by the provisions of Chap.14-C, Kerala Education Rules ("the Rules"). On July 8, 1980 he submitted a representation Ext. P2 to the 2nd respondent, the Director of Public Instruction. To this a reply Ext. P3 dated January 3, 1981 was given, returning the representation on the ground that the 2nd respondent was not competent to change the rules. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext P3 and a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to compel the Government (the 1st respondent) and the Director (the 2nd respondent) to permit him to re-opt to the provisions of Chap.14-B of the Rules. He complains that Art.14 of the Constitution has been violated and he has been discriminated against, for while the right of re-option was allowed to one Fr. C. T. Varkey, Headmaster, St. Joseph's High School, Trivandrum, it has been denied to him. The result, he says, is that the right to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 has been arbitrarily denied to him and as it is, he has to retire at the age of 55 on March 31, 1981. 2. A counter has been filed contesting the petitioner's claims. 3. In my view the petitioner must fa 1 technically and on the merits. The representation Ext. P2 was made to the second respondent who has merely returned it on the ground of his incompetency to alter the rule. The basis of the petitioner's grievance being that the Government which had granted permission to another teacher to reopt has denied him a like permission, he should have moved the Government for relief. That has not been done. Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy me that the second respondent had any such dispensing power. Ext. P3 is therefore right and the prayer for certiorari must be rejected. 4. Granting that he has the right of reoption which is in the power of the Government to grant, the petitioner not having applied to the Government must fail in the prayer for mandamus. 5. On the merits also the petitioner is on no stronger ground. Ext. P3 is therefore right and the prayer for certiorari must be rejected. 4. Granting that he has the right of reoption which is in the power of the Government to grant, the petitioner not having applied to the Government must fail in the prayer for mandamus. 5. On the merits also the petitioner is on no stronger ground. He has once exercised the option and cannot cancel it on second thoughts, merely because it suits him. unless of course the law permits him. Counsel could cite no rule and I could find none which entitles the petitioner to cancel his option to be governed by Chap.14-C and opt for Chap.14-B. The option thus exercised by the petitioner is absolute and final and he cannot ask for re-option The learned Government Pleader brought to my notice two unreported decisions, in O. P. No. 2328 of 1974 (George Vadakkel J.) and O. P. No. 544 of 1980 (Bhaskaran J.) where the same view has been taken. With respect, I follow these decisions and reject the petitioner's contention. 6. In Ext. P1 the Government had permitted the Headmaster of the St. Joseph's High School to re-opt for Chapter XIV B. It is not quite clear that the facts there were similar and that apart, as the petitioner has no right under the law, to a fresh option Ext. P1 provides no helpful precedent The petitioner cannot invoke Article !4 and request this Court to compel the Government to apply to him a decision which is either inapplicable or erroneous. I dismiss the Original Petition but without costs.