Judgment :- 1. A copy of the Original Petition is served on learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. I find it unnecessary to issue notice to the third respondent. I have heard both sides. 2. The dispute in this case arises out of Ext. P1 staff fixation order dated 30-10-1985 passed by the second respondent in regard to Victory High School, Olathanni of which the third respondent is the Manager. The High School had standards 5 to 10. During the previous year 19 divisions had been sanctioned. Under Ext. P1, 18 divisions were sanctioned. There was a reduction of one division for standards 5 and 9 and increase of one division for standard 10. Petitioner and the third respondent are aggrieved by the fall in division strength of standard 9. Third respondent filed a revision before the State Government. Petitioner had also approached the State Government with a revision. As per judgments of this Court in earlier O. Ps, the State Government considered the objections of the petitioner and the third respondent and rejected the same under Ext. P3 order dated 9-7-1987. This order is now challenged. 3. Ext. P3 order was passed on 9-7-1987. This Original Petition is filed on 5-9-1988, after considerable delay. There is no explanation forthcoming for this delay. For this reason alone, the Original Petition can be dismissed. 4. Even on merits the petitioners has no case. It appears there was a verification of student strength of the school on 24-9-1985. Learned Government Pleader explained that that was not by the second respondent, District Educational Officer. During that period government ordered a one day verification of all schools and naturally District Educational Officer could not verify student strength in all the schools. High School Assistants of Government schools were deputed to aided schools for that purpose and, as a matter of fact, in the school concerned in this case verification was conducted by a High School Assistant of a government school and not by the District Educational Officer. On 1-10-1985, the District Educational Officer himself conducted verification. The student strength found on the rolls and on both these occasions are seen mentioned in Ext. P1. 5. We are concerned only with the student strength of standard 9. The roll strength on the 12th working day was 158. The verified attendance on 1-10-1985 was 132. On 1-10-1985, the District Educational Officer himself conducted verification. The student strength found on the rolls and on both these occasions are seen mentioned in Ext. P1. 5. We are concerned only with the student strength of standard 9. The roll strength on the 12th working day was 158. The verified attendance on 1-10-1985 was 132. As per the guidelines 5% of the roll strength would be added to the verified attendance and thus the effective strength of standard 9 was arrived at as 140. If the student strength is between 96 and 140, only three divisions could be allowed. There is no dispute about this proposition. That is why the second respondent allowed only three divisions for standard 9. 6. Petitioner invokes R.15A of Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules. Before referring to this Rule, it is necessary to refer to certain other Rules in the same Chapter. R.12 deals with the fixation of strength of teaching staff. R.12C enables the higher officers to scrutinise the staff fixation made by the lower officers. R.12D grants the manager right of appeal against staff fixation before the superior officer. R.12E contemplates revision to the Director of Public Instruction against the orders of the Deputy Director of Education. It also gives suo mote revisional power to the Director. R.12F confers on the government with powers of revision, to be exercised suo mote or otherwise. R.15A reads thus: "In cases where the fixation of staff strength in schools is revised by the Director of Public Instruction or by the Educational Officers concerned under R.12E or R.15 as the case may be after September, an allowance for a fall of 10% in the effective strength only to support the first verification of staff strength shall be allowed". 7. In order that R.15A can be attracted, it must be a case where staff strength of the school has been already fixed by the statutory authority and such fixation has been revised by the Director of Public Instruction or by the Educational Officers under R.12E or R.15 after September. In such cases an allowance for a fall of 10% in the effective strength only to support the first verification of staff strength shall be allowed. In such cases an allowance for a fall of 10% in the effective strength only to support the first verification of staff strength shall be allowed. The idea contained in the Rule is absolutely clear, namely, that it applies only to a case where staff fixation order passed by the statutory authority is revised by a higher authority under R.12E or R.15and that too after September. In this case the staff fixation order passed before September has not been revised by the Director of Public Instruction or by the Educational" Officer under R.12E or R.15 after September. There is only one staff fixation order and that has not been revised either before or after September either under R.12E or R.15. Therefore, R.15A cannot be attracted to the facts of the case and 10% allowance cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that R.15A would apply even where there is no revision of staff fixation order under R.12E or R.15, but where a second visit has been made after September as is this case. I am afraid I am not able to agree with this submission. The Rule will apply only when the staff strength is fixed originally by the statutory authority and that fixation is revised after September under R.12E or R.15. Such is not the case here in this case. Therefore, R.15A cannot be invoked. 8. In these circumstances. I find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the Original Petition.