JUDGMENT U.L. Bhat, J. 1. Petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 (third respondent in O.P. 7276/82) and petitioner in O.P. 7276/82 (fifth respondent in O.P. 3183/82) are rival claimants to the post of Headmistress of N.N.N.M.U.P. School, Cherpalacherry. Manager of the school and the Assistant Educational Officer, Cherpalacherry are common parties to both the original petitions. Dispute in these cases relates to the entitlement of the two petitioners for being appointed as Headmistress of the school. 2. Vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose on 1st April 1980 by retirement. Petitioners in the two original petitions have been working as U.P. School Assistants in the school, petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 being senior most and petitioner in the other O.P. being junior to her. Admittedly, there was no qualified graduate teacher in the school for appointment as Headmaster. Petitioners in both the original petitions had S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. qualifications and where therefore eligible to be appointed as Headmistress under rule 45 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules (for short 'the rules'). Under rule 44, ordinarily, appointment is to be in accordance with seniority. Therefore, under rules 44 and 45, petitioner in O. P. 3183/ 82 would be entitled to be appointed Headmistress. Rule 45 B of Chapter XIV A was introduced by G.O. (P) 156, dated 3rd November 1978. Clause (1) of this Rule states that notwithstanding rule 45 and 45A, Account Test Lower conducted by the Public Service Commission shall be obligatory qualification for teachers for promotion as Headmaster of Lower Primary and Upper Primary schools. Admittedly, both the claimants had not passed Account Test. Clause (3) of the rule provides for temporary exemption for teachers awaiting promotion as Headmaster for the period indicated therein. Clause (4) contains provision for permanent exemption. 3. Petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 was born on 1st October 1932 and completed 50 years on 1st October 1982. She completed 25 years of service in 1975. Petitioner in. O.P. 7276/82 was born on 1st June 1930 and completed 50 years on 1st June 1980 and completed 25 years of service, according to her, on 24th October 1981. If service in this school alone is to be computed, she completed 25 years of service on 10th September 1982. 4. When the vacancy arose on 1st April 1980, temporary exemption was in operation. It continued till March, 1981. If service in this school alone is to be computed, she completed 25 years of service on 10th September 1982. 4. When the vacancy arose on 1st April 1980, temporary exemption was in operation. It continued till March, 1981. In the absence of qualified graduate teacher and in the absence of test qualified teacher, Manager appointed the senior most Assistant namely petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 (who had temporary exemption) as Headmistress with effect from 1st April 1980. Her appointment was approved as seen in Ext. P-1 marked in that O.P. As per Government Order, marked Ext. R-1 in O.P. 3183/82, in the absence of qualified teachers, teacher-in-charge could be appointed for the year 1981-82. Accordingly, petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 was appointed teacher-in-charge for that year (see Ext. P-5 in that O.P.). After 31st March 1982 Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager to revert her and to appoint a qualified hand. Meanwhile, both claimants were submitting representations to the statutory authorities and Manager claiming their right to be appointed as Headmistress. It was in these circumstances that the claimants filed these original petitions. 5. The vacancy arose on 1st April 1980. On that day there was no qualified graduate teacher in the school and no other teacher was test qualified under rule 45B(1) of Chapter XIV A of the rules. The senior most among the teachers, viz., petitioner in O.P. 3183/82was eligible for temporary exemption under clause (3)of rule45B. Therefore, she was appointed Headmistress. This appointment was certainly in order. But the temporary exemption as the rule then stood was available only till March 1981. Rule 45 B was introduced as per G.O. (P) 156/78, dated 3rd November 1978. Clause (3) as it originally stood provided for temporary exemption for two years from 3rd November 1978.By G.O. (P)13/81, dated 13th January 1981, period of temporary exemption was extended till March 1981. Rule 45 B was introduced as per G.O. (P) 156/78, dated 3rd November 1978. Clause (3) as it originally stood provided for temporary exemption for two years from 3rd November 1978.By G.O. (P)13/81, dated 13th January 1981, period of temporary exemption was extended till March 1981. Period of temporary exemption was not further extended by an amendment of the rule or by an executive order till G.O. (P) 46/83, dated 22nd March 1983 was issued substituting the words "till 31st March 1981" by words "till 31st March 1984".Thus, as a matter of fact, between 1st April 1981 and 22nd March 1983, the rule as it stood indicated temporary exemption only til131st March 1981.If we go by this state of affairs, neither of the claimants could be regarded as having had the benefit of temporary exemption on 1st April 1981.That was why petitioner in O.P. 3183/82was appointed as teacher-in-charge on the strength of an executive order for the year 1981-82. Clause (4) of R.45B asitoriginally stood stated that teachers who have attained the age of 50 years and who have completed 25yearsof service shall stand exempted permanently from acquiring qualification specified in sub-rule (1).This rule was substituted by G.O. (P) 24/82.Thesubstituted rule states that teachers who have attained the age of 50 years shall stand exempted permanently. In other words, attainment of 25 years of service has been dispensed with. As sub-rule(4) stood on 1st April 1981 neither of the claimants could claim the benefit of permanent exemption. Petitioner in O.P 3183 of 1982 did not complete 50 years on that date and the other claimant did not complete 25 years of service on that date. 6. The real dispute relates to the state of affairs as on 1st April 1982 and the entitlement of the rival claimants for appointment as Headmistress with effect from that date. As sub-rule (3) then stood, admittedly exemption had lapsed in March 1981 and the claimants would not be entitled to the benefit of temporary exemption on 1st April 1982. Petitioner in O.P. 3183/82, though seniormost teacher, had not completed 50 years on 1st April 1982 and could not avail of the benefit of permanent exemption on that date. But the petitioner in O.P. 7276/82 who had completed 50 years on 1st June 1980 would be entitled to the benefit of permanent exemption under clause (4). Petitioner in O.P. 3183/82, though seniormost teacher, had not completed 50 years on 1st April 1982 and could not avail of the benefit of permanent exemption on that date. But the petitioner in O.P. 7276/82 who had completed 50 years on 1st June 1980 would be entitled to the benefit of permanent exemption under clause (4). It is on this basis that she contends that the senior claimant did not have the benefit of temporary or permanent exemption on 1st April 1982 and therefore she, though junior, should have been appointed as Headmistress. 7. Petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 would rely on certain subsequent developments in relation to temporary exemption. As per G.O. (P) 13/81, dated 13th January 1981, temporary exemption was extended till 31st March 1981. By an executive order of the Government issued on 10th January 1983 temporary exemption was extended till 31st March 1984. As per G.O. (P) 46/83, dated 22nd March 1983 sub-rule (3) itself was amended by substituting the words "till 31st March 1981" by the words "31st March 1984". 8. According to petitioner in O.P. 7276/82 since the state of affairs as on 1st April 1982 alone is relevant, circumstances and law as they existed on that date should determine the question. As sub-rule (3) of rule 45 B then stood temporary exemption was available till 31st March 1981. Period of exemption was extended till 31st March 1984 only by an executive order dated 10th January 1983 of the Government and by amendment of the rule on 22nd March 1983. It is argued that executive order cannot have retrospective effect and the amendment of the rule was not and could not be given retrospective effect. It is thus argued that during the period from 1st April 1981 till 22nd March 1983 or at any rate till 10th January 1983 there was no temporary exemption available to any teacher regarding test qualification. But learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 would contend that the subsequent Government order amending sub-rule (3) would take effect not merely from the date of the order but even from the earlier period and therefore his client was entitled to temporary exemption even on 1st April 1982. 9. G.O. (P) 46/83, dated 22nd March 1983 introduced an amendment to sub-rule (3) of the rules by way of substitution of the date. 9. G.O. (P) 46/83, dated 22nd March 1983 introduced an amendment to sub-rule (3) of the rules by way of substitution of the date. By substitution, period of exemption was fixed as period ending 31st March 1984. The clear intention of the rule making authority was that exemption should continue right up to 31st March 1984 without leaving gap of an unexempted period. This is not a question of retrospectivity. The disability against the rule-making authority granting retrospective effect is not attracted in this case. As Paripoornan, J. observed in O.P. 5089/84 the fact that a part of the requisites for action is drawn for a time antecedent to its passing, does not import retro-activity. It is not a question of the amendment being retrospective. The amendment is curative or declaratory, being a matter of substitution. It must therefore be taken that from the inception of the rule right up to 31stMarch 1984 temporary exemption was in operation. Even on 1st April 1982the exemption under clause (3) must be deemed to have been in operation. That being so, it must be held that even on 1st April 1982 petitioner in O.P3183/82 had the benefit of exemption. On 1st October 1982, she completed 50 years and became entitled to permanent exemption also. In these circumstances, I must hold that petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 was entitled to be appointed as Headmistress of the school on 1st April 1982. 10. On 18th June 1984, the words "31st March 1984" occurring in rule 45B(3) were substituted, by a Government Order, by the words "till the expiry of two years from 1st April 1984". The rule was formally amended also. As a matter of fact, between the date 31st March 1984 and the date of amendment there was a gap. This court had to consider the question in O.P. 5089/84. In that case, vacancy arose after 31st March 1984 but before the amendment to the rule. Paripoornan, J. held that the benefit of exemption will be available throughout ending with two years from 1st April 1984. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by my learned brother. In the result, O. P. 7276/82 is dismissed but without costs. O.P. 3183/82 is allowed but without costs in the following manner: 1.Ext. P-8 is quashed. 2. Petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 was entitled to be appointed as Headmistress with effect from 1st April 1982. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by my learned brother. In the result, O. P. 7276/82 is dismissed but without costs. O.P. 3183/82 is allowed but without costs in the following manner: 1.Ext. P-8 is quashed. 2. Petitioner in O.P. 3183/82 was entitled to be appointed as Headmistress with effect from 1st April 1982. Manager of the school will issue appropriate orders and the statutory authorities will accord necessary approval.