effected by taking into account 1:45 teacher student ratio and consequently, the petitioner had to face reversion from the post of H.S.A. However, by applying the revised teacher student ratio 1:40, the petitioner was ordered to be retained as H.S.A as per Ext.P1(a) order. Staff fixation order for the year 2006-07 was then issued as per Ext.P1(b). In spite of Ext.P2 G.O extending the benefit of 1:40 teacher student ratio, the fourth respondent declined to grant the benefit of Ext.P2 to the petitioner in the light of Ext.P11 G.O. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be reverted to the post of U.P.S.A. Against the said reversion as also against the action on the part of the fourth respondent in not applying Ext.P2 G.O, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 appeal. As per Ext.P6 order, the said appeal was rejected by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner took up the matter in revision before the second respondent. Aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P7 revision petition dated 11.12.2007, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.9373/2008. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment and, consequently, the second respondent passed Ext.P9 order. Virtually, as per Ext.P9 order, Ext.P3 order has been confirmed. Besides the same, the order granting the benefit
