JUDGMENT : C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. State of Kerala and its educational authorities are in appeal against judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P (c) No.5212/2015, dated 27-10-2015. 2. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner, who is the Manager of 'Kottathala Surendran Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary School', Edavattom, which is a school functioning since 1982 in the aided sector. The school was having Standards VIII, IX & X in the High School section, apart from classes in the Vocational Higher Secondary School. According to the writ petitioner, a feeding school situated in the locality is having only standards I to V and there existed an educational need in the locality for starting standards VI & VII. Hence the writ petitioner submitted application to the District Educational Officer (DEO) under Rule 2A (6) of Chapter V of Kerala Education Rules (KER for short) seeking permission to start standards VI & VII, with effect from academic year 2015-2016. The DEO forwarded the said application to the Director of Public Instructions (DPI). The writ petitioner had approached this court when the said application was not considered. During pendency of the writ petition, he was served with Ext.P2 letter issued by the DEO intimating that the application is returned for the reason that an application for opening of new standards can be accepted only on the basis of a notification issued under Rule 2A. When Ext.P2 letter was brought to notice of the Single Bench, an interim order was passed on 28-05-2015, observing that the writ petitioner is seeking only addition of two standards in the existing school and that he is not seeking any upgradation of the school in question in order to attract provisions of Rule 2A (1) & (2) of Chapter V K.E.R; and hence the application need to have been considered in accordance with Rule 2A (6) of Chapter V. Therefore the DEO was directed to accept the application and to process the same afresh in accordance with provisions of Rule I and Rule 2A of Chapter V. 3. In view of the aforesaid interim direction of the single judge, the DEO had issued a proceedings dated 09-09-2015, forwarding the application to the DPI. In view of the aforesaid interim direction of the single judge, the DEO had issued a proceedings dated 09-09-2015, forwarding the application to the DPI. While so the writ petition itself was disposed of by directing the appellants/respondents to consider the application under Rule 2A (6) in terms of sub Rules (3), (4) & (5) of Rule 2A and to pass appropriate orders within the period specified thereunder. In the judgment it was observed that in terms of Rule 2A of Chapter V, a notification has to be issued only for the purpose of upgrading or for starting of a new school. That is not the situation for starting new standard, for which a different procedure has been prescribed in terms of Rule 2A (6). Hence it is held that, in terms of sub Rule (6) of Rule 2A the application need not be preceded by any notification in terms of sub Rule (1) of Rule 2A. It is observed that the educational authorities are bound to consider the application of the writ petitioner under Rule 2A (6) of Chapter V, in terms of sub Rules (3), (4) & (5). It is aggrieved by the said findings that the Government and the educational officers are in appeal. 4. Contentions of the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of appellants are mainly that, by virtue of sub Rule (5) of Rule 1 of Chapter V, the procedure laid down in Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V are made applicable mutatis mutandis to opening and recognition of new standards. Therefore the assessment of the educational need contemplated under Rule 2 and publication of a list notifying the areas where new schools of any grade are to be opened, will equally apply in the case of opening and recognition of new standards. Therefore it is contended that the findings rendered by the learned single judge to the extent that the application under sub Rule (6) of Rule 2A need to be considered only under sub Rules (3), (4) & (5) of Rule 2A, is illegal and erroneous. It is contended that, while rendering such a finding the provisions of sub Rule (5) of Rule 1 was not brought to notice of the learned Single Judge. 5. It is contended that, while rendering such a finding the provisions of sub Rule (5) of Rule 1 was not brought to notice of the learned Single Judge. 5. Per contra, Smt. K.R. Krishnakumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner contended that, provisions of sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 2A will apply only in the case of applications for opening of new schools of any or all grades or with respect to applications for upgradation of any existing Lower Primary or Upper Primary schools or both. There the statute insist upon a notification to be published by the Director, calling for applications for opening of any new schools or for raising of the grade of any existing schools, in the areas specified through the final list to be published under sub Rule (2) of Rule 2. It is contended that the insistence that an application can be submitted only in response to such notification published by the Director, as insisted in sub Rule (2) of Rule 2A, is not applicable in the case of seeking permission for opening of new standard or standards in an existing school during any school year, which is not involving raising of the grade. It is contended that sub Rule (6) of Rule 2A is a special provision dealing with applications seeking permission for opening of new standards in any existing schools in cases where it does not involve raising of the grade. Hence it is contended that, findings of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the application need to be considered without preceded by a notification in terms of sub Rule (1) of Rule 2A is perfectly valid and justified. Therefore the respondent appealed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 6. While evaluating the rival contentions we take note of the fact that applicability of Rule 1 (5) of Chapter V was not seen considered by the learned single judge. It is beneficial to re-produce provisions of Sub Rule (5) of Rule 1 of Chapter V; "(5) The opening of schools by an Educational Agency and their recognition shall be governed by the procedure laid down in the rules below and they shall apply mutatis mutandis to the opening and recognition of new standards. It is beneficial to re-produce provisions of Sub Rule (5) of Rule 1 of Chapter V; "(5) The opening of schools by an Educational Agency and their recognition shall be governed by the procedure laid down in the rules below and they shall apply mutatis mutandis to the opening and recognition of new standards. Permission to open and for recognition for each standard shall be separately obtained." Evidently the intention of the legislature is to make applicable the procedure laid down in Rule 2 and Rule 2A, which are applicable with respect to opening of schools and its recognition, mutatis mutandis to opening of new standards. Therefore sub Rule (5) of Rule 1 need to be considered as a general provision making the procedure for opening and recognition of new standards in par with the procedure for opening and recognition of new schools. It is true that under Rule 2A (6) a separate procedure for submission of application with respect to permission for opening new standards not involving raising of grade, is provided. There it is specifically provided that the application can be submitted to the DEO. It is also true that sub Rule (1) & (2) of Rule 2A deals only with opening of new schools of any or all grades or with upgrading of existing Lower Primary or Upper Primary schools or both. In that view of the matter finding of the learned single judge that a separate procedure is prescribed need to be accepted. But the general provisions contained in Rule 1 (5) need to be considered as one insisting for assessment of educational need in the locality, even with respect to opening of new standards in an existing school, without raising of the grade. We are persuaded to take such a view based on an analysis of the objectives sought to be achieved by the rule making authority. Because, on a hypothetical analysis, if it is assumed that sub Rule (1) & (2) of Rule 2A is not applicable with respect to applications under sub Rule (6), it will enable any educational agency to seek permission for opening of new grade (lower grade) and the Government will be compelled to allow the same without having any assessment of the educational need in the locality. This will eventually result in affecting other schools functioning in the locality with the same grade and also will cause unnecessary financial burden on the Government under the direct payment scheme. If we take a hypothetical example of an educational agency having secondary grade, they can seek permission for opening of a primary grade, either a lower primary or upper primary grade, by applying for permission to open new standards in the lower grade/grades, on an year to year basis. This will definitely affect the existing schools functioning in the locality with the same grades. Therefore it is evident that the intention of the legislature while introducing Rule 1 (5) is to protect such situations. Hence we disagree with the findings impugned herein to the effect that, the applications submitted in terms of sub Rule (6) of Rule 2A need not be preceded by a notification in terms of Rule 2A (1). 7. We take note of the fact that the appellants have filed a review petition against the impugned judgment as RP No.162/2016, which was disposed of by the learned single judge through order dated 29-09-2016, reiterating the findings that, permission to open new standard in an existing school not involving raising of grade shall be separately dealt with under Rule 2A (6). Needless to mention that, based on the findings rendered by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the order passed in the review petition cannot be sustained legally. 8. In the result, the above writ appeal is hereby allowed. W.P (c) No.5212/2015 will stand dismissed. We make it clear that the above judgment will not stand in the way of the respondent/revision petitioner making fresh application for opening of any new standards or grade in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 2 & 2A of Chapter V K.E.R.