Judgment :- 1. The Director of Public Instruction published a preliminary list of 275 areas for opening new schools as per the Notification No.W4/30170/82 dated 15-3-1982. Poovattoor was included as Sl. No. 97 among the places notified as an area where a High School is to be opened or an Upper Primary School to be upgraded. The petitioner in p, P. 4989/1984 and others objected to the inclusion of Poovattoor in the preliminary list. The objectors were heard by the 2nd respondent, Director of Public Instruction, on 15-11-1982. The 2nd respondent there-upon found that the objections are valid and that Poovattoor may be dropped from the list. After getting the approval of the Government the final list of areas for new High Schools for the academic year 1982-83 was. published by Notification dated 27-1-1983. Poovattoor did not find a place in the final list. Additional third respondent, Manager of Poovattoor U.P. School filed a review petition before the Minister for Education challenging the non-inclusion of Poovattoor in the final list of areas for new High Schools. The petitioner was given notice of that review petition. The Minister for Education heard the petitioner and others on the review petition on 4-6-1983. The Government by Ext. P5 order (G.O.Rt. No. 1391/84/ G. Edn. dated 3-5-1984) decided to include Poovattoor in the final list of areas for opening new High Schools. On 30-5-1984 the Government invited applications for opening new High Schools in three areas including Poovattoor in Kottarakkara Education District. Thereafter the Government by order, G.O. (MS) No. 7134/84/G. Edn. dated 18-7-1984 decided to upgrade the Upper Primary School at Poovattoor as High School. The action of the Government in passing in Ext. P5 order reviewing the final list by including Poovattoor as a place for setting up a new High School and granting sanction to the additional third respondent to upgrade the existing U. P. School are under challenge in O. P.4989/1984. 2. R.2 of Chapter V, Kerala Education Rules lays down the procedure for determining the areas where new schools are to be opened and existing schools upgraded. Sub-rule (1) of R.2 deals with the manner in which the Director of Public Instruction is to prepare a list indicating the localities where new schools are to be opened and existing schools upgraded. R.2 of Chapter V, Kerala Education Rules lays down the procedure for determining the areas where new schools are to be opened and existing schools upgraded. Sub-rule (1) of R.2 deals with the manner in which the Director of Public Instruction is to prepare a list indicating the localities where new schools are to be opened and existing schools upgraded. Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule-2 enumerate various aspects which are to be taken into consideration in preparing the said list. The list so prepared is to be published in the Gazette inviting objections or representations against the same. Sub-rule (3) of Rule-2 provides for further steps to be taken before finalising the list. That provision enables the Director to hear the parties before finalising the list which is to be forwarded to the Government with his recommendations. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule-2 the Government are to scrutinise all the records before granting approval to the list. While giving such approval the Government are having the power to modify the list. The list as scrutinised and approved by the Government has to be forwarded to the Director who in turn is to publish the same in the Gazette. Sub-rule (5) of Rule-2 would state that no appeal or revision shall lie against the final list published by the Director. But it contains a proviso authorising the Government to review the order finalising the list suo mote or on application by any person submitted before the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication. In such review the Government can make modifications in the list as they deem fit by way of additions or omissions. But for doing so the Government are to be satisfied that: (i) any relevant ground has not been taken into consideration or (ii) any irrelevant ground has been taken into consideration or (iii) any relevant fact has not been taken into account while finalising the said list. 3. In the instant case the preliminary list of areas for opening new schools during the academic year 1982-83 was published on 15-3-1982. Objections were filed by the petitioner in O. P. 4989/84 and others. They were given a hearing by the Director of Public Instruction. 3. In the instant case the preliminary list of areas for opening new schools during the academic year 1982-83 was published on 15-3-1982. Objections were filed by the petitioner in O. P. 4989/84 and others. They were given a hearing by the Director of Public Instruction. After hearing all the objectors, the Director came to the conclusion that the objections raised by them are valid and that there is no educational need to start a new High School at Poovattoor. Accordingly, he ordered to drop Poovattoor from the list. This finding of the Director of Public Instruction is evident from the file leading to R. Dis. 30170/82 dated 31-3-1984, which is made available to me by the learned Government Pleader. The said opinion of the Director was forwarded to the Government as contemplated by sub-rule (4) of Rule-2, Chapter V, K. E. R. The Government after scrutinising all the records approved the recommendations of the Director. Thereafter the final list was notified. In that final list Poovattoor was not included. Thereafter the additional 3rd respondent filed a review petition before the Minister for Education on 4-6-1983 for reviewing the final list. Notice of that petition was served on the petitioner in O. P. 4989/84 as well. The Minister for Education heard the petitioner and others on 4-6-1983. The Review Petition has been disposed of by Ext. P5 order dated 3-5-1984. The operative portion of that order reads: "In the circumstances, the review petition is allowed and the place "Poovattoor" will be included in the final list of areas for opening new High Schools/ upgrading existing U. P. Schools." The main attack levelled against this order is that it is not possible to find out whether the Government issued Ext. P5 order on account of the fact that any relevant ground has not been taken into consideration while issuing the final list or was on account of any irrelevant ground having been taken into consideration in finalising the list or on account of any relevant fact not having been taken into account while finalising the said list. The order reviewing the final list can be sustained only if it is shown that the Government's interference was on account of the existence of any one of the above mentioned three conditions. The only way of knowing the existence or otherwise of any of such conditions is by reading the order. The order reviewing the final list can be sustained only if it is shown that the Government's interference was on account of the existence of any one of the above mentioned three conditions. The only way of knowing the existence or otherwise of any of such conditions is by reading the order. So the order must indicate that the Government had applied its mind to the above circumstances. Whenever the facts and circumstances indicate the existence of any of the above mentioned conditions the Government will be justified in revising the list. The order should show that it was on account of the existence of such a cause that the review was made. The order should be a speaking order in the sense that from the same it should be possible for the court to find the existence of that particular reason which prompted the Government to review the final list. The reason for review should be discernible from the order itself. If no reason at all is seen, as in this case, the order can only be termed as an arbitrary one (Vide Mayer Simon v. Advocate General Kerala & Others (1975 KLT 78, Full Bench of Five Judges). While passing Ext. P5 order the Government have stated the facts of the case, contentions raised by the parties and the facts reiterated by the educational authorities. After stating them the Government passed the order quoted above." The report of the District Educational Officer made mention of in that order was available with the Government when they scrutinised the recommendations sent by the Director of Public Instruction with the final list. While finalising the said list the Director had taken note of the report of the District Educational Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the report of the Dist. Educational Officer had not been taken into consideration while finalising the list. The Government have no case that any irrelevant ground was taken into consideration while finalising the list. Nor have they a case that any relevant fact was omitted to be taken into consideration. In such a situation, the exercise of the revisional power under sub-rule (5) of Rule-2 of Chapter V, K.E.R. was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. 4. The Government have no case that any irrelevant ground was taken into consideration while finalising the list. Nor have they a case that any relevant fact was omitted to be taken into consideration. In such a situation, the exercise of the revisional power under sub-rule (5) of Rule-2 of Chapter V, K.E.R. was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the additional third respondent raised a contention that the Government had not given any reason for deleting Poovattoor while publishing the final list and so the exclusion of Poovattoor was illegal and that illegality alone has been rectified by issuing Ext. P5 order. According to counsel, even in deciding on the final list of all schools, under R.2(4) of Chapter V, K.E.R., the Government have to exercise its mind on the questions of inclusion or exclusion of areas in the list. In other words, at every stage of the proceedings and particularly at the stage of the publication of the final list the Government have to act judicially on the basis of an assessment of matters relevant to its decision and not act mechanically or on the basis of considerations which are not relevant under the Kerala Education Act or Rules. The Government was not aware of this responsibility and they have not issued a reasoned order for exclusion of Poovattoor from the preliminary list. In such a situation, it is submitted that the final list itself was defective. Ext. P5 order was aimed at rectifying that defect. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext. P5 order is not open to challenge. I find it difficult to accept this argument. As stated earlier, after the publication of the preliminary list under R.2(1) the Director is to invite objections or representations against that list under R.2 (2). The Assistant Educational Officer, and the District Educational Officer are then to conduct enquiries, hear the parties, visit the areas and send their reports with their views on the objections to the Director as provided by R.2 (3). That sub-rule further provides that the. Director may, thereafter hear the parties and finalise the list. So, the decision regarding the final list is to be taken by the Director of Public Instruction at this stage. The list so finalised is to be sent to the Government. R.2 (4) enjoins on the Government to scrutinise all records sent by the Director. Director may, thereafter hear the parties and finalise the list. So, the decision regarding the final list is to be taken by the Director of Public Instruction at this stage. The list so finalised is to be sent to the Government. R.2 (4) enjoins on the Government to scrutinise all records sent by the Director. On such scrutiny the Government can modify the list. At that stage, according to me, the Government are not to give any reasoned order in support of the decision taken by the Director on the inclusion or exclusion of any area in the final list. The absence of such an order will not vitiate the final list. Hence, it cannot be said that the final list was published without the Government taking note of all the relevant matters. 5. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submit that the Government have given sufficient reason in their counter affidavit in support of the order passed in exercise of the power of review. According to counsel, those reasons will show that the Government exercised the power of review on sufficient ground. The reasons stated in the counter affidavit cannot be adverted to examine whether Ext. P5 order is valid or not. Ext.P5 order has to stand on its own. That order must bring out the existence of one of the three conditions mentioned in the first proviso to R.2 (5) of Chapter V, K.E.R. That ground cannot be supplemented by the affidavit. If the order is bad on account of the absence of the circumstances warranting the review, the court cannot allow the Government to prove the existence of a circumstance warranting such review by affidavit filed in court. If it is allowed, an order which was invalid at the beginning may become valid by additional grounds later brought out. This cannot be permitted. At this juncture I think it worth-while to quote the following observations made by V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & others (A.I.R. 1978 S. C. 851): "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out". The validity or otherwise of Ext. P5 order cannot be decided in the light of the explanations subsequently given by the Government. The -circumstances which were in the mind of the Government which prompted them to issue Ext.P5 order must find a place in that order itself. Since Ext.P5 is silent regarding the existence of any one of the circumstances warranting review as per the first proviso to R.2 (5), the said order has to be set aside. I do so. 6. When Ext.P5 is set aside the subsequent actions taken by the educational authorities and the Government in sanctioning the upgradation of the U.P. School belonging to the additional third respondent must be taken as void ab initio. The sanction given to the additional third respondent to start the High School cannot have any legal validity. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that his client had started the school and large number of students are admitted there. If this court interferes with Ext. P5 order and the consequent sanction given for upgradation of the U.P. School is set aside, it is submitted that the students and teachers will be put to very great hardship. The third respondent will be subjected to heavy financial loss as well. On account of these circumstances, it is argued that this court at this distance of time may not interfere with the High School started by the third respondent. I find it difficult to accept this argument. The petitioner approached this court in June, 1984, challenging Ext. P5 order. On account of the pendency of the Original Petition in this court the third respondent could start the school, get the students admitted and teachers appointed. The Original Petition happened to pend on the file of this court for nearly 41/2 years. This delay on the part of this court in disposing of the O.P. cannot go to the advantage of the third respondent. Nor can the delay go to validate an illegal order passed by the Government. The Original Petition happened to pend on the file of this court for nearly 41/2 years. This delay on the part of this court in disposing of the O.P. cannot go to the advantage of the third respondent. Nor can the delay go to validate an illegal order passed by the Government. I have no hesitation in my mind in holding that on account of the delay in the disposal of this petition an order passed by the Government without jurisdiction should not be allowed to continue in force. The order passed by the Government without application of mind to the relevant facts cannot have any legal effect and such an order is not to be allowed to be in force solely on account of the delay on the part of this court in disposing of the Original Petition. 8. O.P. No. 4073/1985 is one filed by the Parent-Teachers Association of the High School, Poovattoor. They have asked for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Manager of the school to admit the students in the High School Section for the academic year 1985-86 at the risk of the students. Along with that petition they moved CM.P.12474/1985. This court granted an interim direction to admit the students in the High School Section at the risk of the students. The students were admitted in pursuance to that order. Now it has been found that the establishment of the High School at Poovattoor was illegal. So the students cannot continue in the school. Further they got themselves admitted at their risk. The Director of Public Instruction and the concerned District Educational Officer are directed to get the students admitted in the High School Section transferred to the nearby High School, without causing inconvenience to them. If it is felt that these students must take their final examination to be held in March, 1989, their shifting to the nearby schools must be effected after the examinations are over. 9. The Original Petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated above. No costs. Issue carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.