STATE OF REPRSENTEDKERALA Vs. CRAFT SMT.SUMAN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in W.P.(C).No.8782 of 2011 who are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge have filed this appeal.

(2.) WE heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) /03/2008. Subsequently by Ext.P4 order, approval for the subsequent years was also rejected on the ground that for Arts group, there were only 17 periods and that as a result the requirements of Rule 6(4) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules are not satisfied. Appeal filed by the Manager and the representation filed by the teacher were rejected by the Government as per Ext.P8 order. It is in these circumstances the Writ Petition was filed by the teacher and the Manager who are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. The short question that arises in this case is, whether the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the 3rd proviso to Rule 6(4) (C) of Chapter XXIII of KER is legal or not. The said proviso which is relied on by both sides read as under: -