Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. The petitioner at present is working as a Physical Education Teacher in the Cochin Refineries School, Ambalamughal. The first respondent, a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act is running the school. The second respondent is the Principal of the school and the Cochin Refineries Limited is impleaded as the third respondent. The Primary and Upper Primary classes of the school have been recognized by the Department of Education, Kerala State. The Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi. The petitioner's claim is that he is entitled to be placed as Trained Graduate Teacher/Physical Education Teacher (TGT/PET) from 01-05-1981 and consequently, a higher grade on completion of 12 years of such service. An appropriate fixation of scales of pay has also been prayed for. In the matter of options that were submitted by the petitioner and fixation consequent thereto, there has been irregularity and the anomalies as above, according to him, are to be corrected by these proceedings. 2. The petitioner had been appointed as Primary Education Instructor on 23-06-1978, by a process of selection, in the primary teachers scale of pay of Rs. 440-840. He was put on probation for a period of two years. In the meanwhile, on 30-04-1979 he had been advised that he has been re-designated as physical Education Teacher. The one line order issued could be extracted herein below : "Please be advised that you have been re-designated as physical Education Teacher effective May 1, 1979." His probation was extended by one year and he was confirmed in the post of Primary Education Teacher on 20-04-1981. The petitioner wants this appointment to be as Trained Graduate Teacher, effective from 01-05-1981. 3. Thereafter, of course he had been granted Trained Graduate Teacher's scale, by Ext. P4, effective from 1.6.1988 and his pay was upgraded to Rs. 880/- per month in the grade Rs. 740-1490. But he submits that his basic claims were overlooked, and no reasons ever have been assigned for this conduct. The averment is that on receipt of Ext. P2, on the very same day, he had made a representation that as his redesignation was consequent to the resignation of his senior Sri. P.C. Chacko, so as to fill up the vacuum and as he was functioning as such he should be given the grade of physical Education Teacher which Sri. The averment is that on receipt of Ext. P2, on the very same day, he had made a representation that as his redesignation was consequent to the resignation of his senior Sri. P.C. Chacko, so as to fill up the vacuum and as he was functioning as such he should be given the grade of physical Education Teacher which Sri. Chacko was enjoying. However, receipt of such representation is denied by the respondents and the petitioner has not been able to prove that such complaint had been submitted for consideration. The petitioner had thereafter submitted Ext. P3(a) dated 26.08.1981 which highlighted his eligibilities for the grade of Physical Education Teacher. But it is not seen that the matter was seriously pursued thereafter. 4. The next phase, that has been highlighted, is the filing of an Original Petition, as O.P. No. 9633 of 1989. The staff association and 7 other teachers, including the petitioner herein, had jointly filed the above Original Petition. The prayer in the writ petition was for a parity of pay scales with that of the teachers of Kendriya Vidyalayas and their service conditions. While the Original Petition was pending, the Chairman of the Executive Committee had, by Ext. P5 dated 28.7.1993, advised the staff members of the school that after considering the representations from the staff it had been decided to implement the Kendriya Vidyalayas scale of pay. A condition had been imported therein that the pending Original Petition was to be withdrawn. The pay scales as offered by Ext. P5 had been implemented thereafter. It so happened that the petitioner had not been granted the expected benefits viz., his claim for TGT scales from the date of Ext. P2, nor the higher grade after 12 years thereof. Ext. P5 however had made it clear that in spite of withdrawl of the Original Petition the individual grievances regarding anomalies etc., could be considered separately on merits. Taking note of the above and as the petitioner genuinely felt that he had a grievance to be redressed further representations were made by him, as could be seen from Exts. P8, P9, P10, P11 etc. But the Managing Director of the third respondent had made it clear by Ext. P13 dated 05.05.1994, that no such claims were admissible. The relevant portion of the communication is extracted herein below : "Mr. P8, P9, P10, P11 etc. But the Managing Director of the third respondent had made it clear by Ext. P13 dated 05.05.1994, that no such claims were admissible. The relevant portion of the communication is extracted herein below : "Mr. K.P. Varkey was appointed in the Primary Teacher's scale in June, 1978 and he was upgraded as Trained Graduate Teacher with effect from 1-6-1988 i.e. on completion of 10 years service. Any upgradation in his present post can be considered only after completion of 12 years in the present scale as per the Kendriya Vidyalaya Rules subject to his satisfactory performance." 5. This has led to the filing of the present Original Petition. In fact it appears that the petitioner was constrained to move this court in the wake of proposals by the school to recover from his salary some excess payments due to the refixation requested for by him while re-option was submitted. In a nut shell, the petitioner's submission is that while working as a primary education instructor his posting as primary education teacher brought about by Ext. P2 is to be construed as a posting in the TGT scale and he is therefore entitled to difference of emoluments arising therefrom and also the claims for higher grade taking this date as his qualifying period for such benefit. 6. The claims are opposed by the respondents. A major portion of the pleadings and submissions centered round the contention, as to whether the Original Petition was maintainable. In fact the petitioner himself had paved way for such a preliminary objection, since even in the Original Petition there were elaborate pleadings to show as to how and why an Original Petition was maintainable. The authorities cited also were enumerous to drive home this position. While examining the contentions, for and against, I do not think that this is a matter which requires so much of consideration or controversy. From a totality of the circumstances I have to come to the conclusion that the Original Petition has to be treated as one which is maintainable. Reliefs have been claimed against an 'authority' coming under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. Majority of the shares of the third respondent-Cochin Refineries are held by the President of India and the Government of Kerala. Reliefs have been claimed against an 'authority' coming under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. Majority of the shares of the third respondent-Cochin Refineries are held by the President of India and the Government of Kerala. A Division Bench of this court, by the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 712 (Paulose v. Cochin Refineries Ltd.) had held that the Cochin Refinery Limited is an instrumentality of the State. As for this proposition there was no serious objections, but the contention was that the first respondent society was running the school and therefore even if the third respondent-company was a "State" ipsofacto the rest of the propositions automatically did not follow. My task of an enquiry has become simplified in this regard, because the respondent s have made available for my perusal the relevant provisions of the rules and regulations of the Cochin Refineries Educational Society. The Society is registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The main object of the society is to provide education among the children and dependents of the employees of the Cochin Refineries Limited by establishment and maintenance of schools. Ext. R1(s) shows that membership of the society shall be confined to those nominated by the management of the Cochin Refineries Limited. Paragraph 4 of the Rules and Regulations lays down inter alia, that any member may be removed from the society by the management of the cochin Refineries Limited. Paragraph 9 deals with the formation of an Executive Committee. The members of the Executive Committee, including the President, Secretary and Treasurer, shall be nominated by the management of the Cochin Refineries Limited from year to year. Thus, the third respondent-Company has all the powers for deciding as to who shall be the members of the Society and who are to be constituted as members of the Executive Committee. Documents have been produced to show that the functioning of the Society is looked after by the Company and practically there is no distinction between the staff members of the society and the employees of the company in the matter of benefits and perquisites that are extended from time to time. The other documents produced also indicate that in the matter of policy decisions, the third respondent alone has a say. The other documents produced also indicate that in the matter of policy decisions, the third respondent alone has a say. The presumption that arises is that the Society is functioning as an appendage of the third respondent-Company and for convenience it is functioning as an independent entity registered under a separate Act. 8. It has also been brought to my attention that the Kerala Government, in 1967 by Ext. P23, had passed orders recognizing the school under the Kerala Education rules on the request made by the third respondent, though it was noticed therein that the Education Aid Society was running the school. The final decision on every matter in respect of the school and teachers rested with the Managing Director, as evidenced by Ext. P13, though it has not been properly described in the Original petition. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the Original Petition which complains of discrimination, is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Whether it is possible for an extra constitutional authority to take a decision, as done by Ext. P13 or not, the question becomes academic, since the petitioner himself and preferred the appeal). 9. Now we may examine the issue as to whether there is any sustainable claims urged by the petitioner. His claim entirely rests on Ext. P2 which is a redesignation granted to him in the year 1979. He submits that such orders had been passed when the incumbent of the post had resigned some months earlier and thereupon he had been granted the opportunity to shoulder the duties that had been discharged by his predecessor. Therefore, according to him, it was only natural that he is to be awarded the benefits and status that were attached to the above said post. 10. However, I find it difficult to accept the above argument. Perhaps additional duties might have been there, but it was not at all a case of promotion. At this context, it could be examined as to how the petitioner felt about his candidature, as highlighted in Ext. P3(a). It is certainly not as if he did not know about his onions. We have also to proceed on the assumption that Ext. P3 has not been submitted on the date of the redesignation or thereafter. Ext. P3(a) of 26.08.1981 evidently has been given after his confirmation. P3(a). It is certainly not as if he did not know about his onions. We have also to proceed on the assumption that Ext. P3 has not been submitted on the date of the redesignation or thereafter. Ext. P3(a) of 26.08.1981 evidently has been given after his confirmation. Therein he states that he was confirmed, that he has basic degree, and have sufficient experience including experience in the Cochin Refinery School, and there was always a teacher in the higher grade, from the very beginning, as in the case of other schools, and he was attending to additional duties. These were the reasons projected for conferment of TGT position. It is evident that there is no claim, as had been developed subsequently, that he stepped to the shoes of TGT; but what was requested was only a consideration of his credentials. The petitioner was aware that he had no legal rights, and the school management was requested to consider his case if they thought fit to prefer him for such appointment. But such claims had not been taken notice of. He had accepted the posting that had been given to him in 1988 as a Trained Graduate Teacher and apart from his submissions that he was spearheading the movement of the teachers, there is nothing worthwhile on record to show that the petitioner was subjected to any discrimination. It was a normal instance wherein the petitioner was a teacher in the lower grade and the management had conferred on him the grade of Trained Graduate Teacher, when his turn came. 11. It may not be within the jurisdiction of this Court to suggest that even if there is a vacancy, a person who was redesignated has to be given the scales of pay and the designation. Additional duties he might have discharged but only interpretation of existing rights is envisaged by the jurisdiction now exercised by me in these proceedings. The petitioner has not pointed out any such rights or corresponding obligations. Especially after 15 years of such posting it may not be proper to call upon the respondents to review the situation. If the petitioner's claim for being recognized as a Trained Graduate Teacher from 1979 onwards cannot be recognized, automatically his claims for higher grade as a TGT after 12 years of Ext. P2 also cannot be supported or enforced. Especially after 15 years of such posting it may not be proper to call upon the respondents to review the situation. If the petitioner's claim for being recognized as a Trained Graduate Teacher from 1979 onwards cannot be recognized, automatically his claims for higher grade as a TGT after 12 years of Ext. P2 also cannot be supported or enforced. Of course the petitioner had attempted to project his case on the basis that there was discrimination. However, the circumstances had been satisfactorily explained by the additional materials that had been made available. His claim was that Mrs. Janaki Iyer, Mrs. Pressida Correya and two others had been permitted to reckon their service while working in the KG classes for grant of higher grade. This consideration had been denied to him and it was therefore discriminatory. But it had been explained that there was practice in the school to appoint teachers in the KG class on consolidated pay and regularize them later as primary teachers in regular scale of pay. As for the petitioner he was selected to a notified post, had he underwent probation, and during the period there was only a redesignation. This court has no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to annul Ext. P2 or substitute it by any other order. What had been offered had been accepted by him without a demur, and none of his legal rights were refused to be recognized or overlooked. 12. It is also evident that there was no discrimination as against him, since persons who were even seniors to him (V.N. Surendran) had also continued as a primary education teacher and was conferred TGT grade only later than him. He was not therefore able to get the higher grade before entering on retirement. The petitioner can aspire for higher grade only after 12 years of his becoming a TGT and as such there is no reason for alleging that he has been discriminated in any manner. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are no grievances capable of being redressed by resort to an Original Petition. In the matter of fixation of his pay, because of the stand taken by the petitioner, he has come across certain difficulties. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are no grievances capable of being redressed by resort to an Original Petition. In the matter of fixation of his pay, because of the stand taken by the petitioner, he has come across certain difficulties. This was because he had failed to submit an option in the first instance and he had failed to submit an option in the first instance and he had been accommodated by applying Formula 1, referred to in Ext. P5. Thereafter when a reoption as if he was entitled to a higher grade, as a person who had come over to TGT grade and the date suggested had resulted in a fixation which was to operate in reduction of his pay. During the course of proceedings, the respondents had undertaken that if a representation is given the matter will be subjected to re-examination for giving maximum benefits within the four corners of the orders and the rules. I record this undertaking and if a representation comes, without delay, the matter will be looked into appropriately. The Original Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.