This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P2, P3 and P5 orders and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the option finalised as per Exhibit P1 or in the alternative permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh option. The petitioner contends that her option in respect of 2004 pay revision was finalised as per Exhibit P1 by the Deputy Director of Education overruling the objections raised by the District Educational Officer and this has become final. Later, on a revision preferred by another teacher one Aryakumaran, seeking stepping up of pay at par with that of the petitioner, Exhibit P2 order was issued by the Government. It was found that the said teacher, who had raised the claim, cannot be treated as senior to the petitioner and his request was, therefore, rejected. However, it is found that the date of increment of the petitioner from 5/1992 was found to be erroneous and she was eligible for increment with effect from 2/91, 2/92, 2/93 and so on. The District Educational Officer was subsequently directed to refix the pay of the petitioner. By Exhibit P3, the District Educational Officer has passed orders refixing the pay which, according to the petitioner, has resulted in substantial loss to her. Though the matter was taken up before the Government by the petitioner again, by Exhibit P5, the petitioner was directed to forward the proposal for re-option
