Judgment :- Petitioner in O.P.3174 of 1989 is the third respondent in O.P.2333 of 1989. The contest is between the petitioner in O.P.3174 of 1989 and the petitioner in O.P.2333 of 1989. 2. For the sake of convenience, the position of the parties as in O.P.3174 of 1989 is followed in the discussion hereunder: Petitioner is an under graduate teacher whereas the 5th respondent is a graduate with B. Ed, degree. Post of Headmastership fell vacant on 1-4-1988. Fifth respondent had completed five years after acquisition of graduation. But he had not completed five acquisition of B.Ed. Rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules has been amended. After amendment, the qualification prescribed is that one should have five years experience after acquisition of B.Ed, degree. Rule 45 as it stood before amendment is to the effect that when the post of Headmaster of complete U.P.School is vacant or when an incomplete U.R.School becomes a complete U.P.School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the School or Schools under the Educational Agency and if there is a Graduate Teacher with B.Ed, or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching after graduation, he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the senior most undergraduate teacher. It further states that if graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the School or Schools under the same Educational Agency, the senior most Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C or equivalent and T.T.C. qualification may be appointed. Amendment to the above said rule has come into effect on 10-1-1989. In view of the amendment, the position is that one should have five years experience after acquisition of B.Ed, degree. 3. Educational Authority decided in favour of the petitioner. O.P.3174 of 1989 is filed to enforce the decision. O.P.2333 of 1989 is filed challenging the order in favour of the petitioner in O.P.3174 of 1989. 4. The question that arise for consideration is whether Ext. P-2 amendment can be considered restrospective or not. Before the amendment, the question arose whether the five years experience mentioned in Rule 45 should be after graduation or after the acquisition of B.Ed, qualification. 4. The question that arise for consideration is whether Ext. P-2 amendment can be considered restrospective or not. Before the amendment, the question arose whether the five years experience mentioned in Rule 45 should be after graduation or after the acquisition of B.Ed, qualification. In Raghavan v. State of Kerala [1987 (2) K.L.T.942 (F.B.)] a Full Bench of this court held that the five years experience mentioned under Rule 45 is after graduation. It is thereafter that the amendment to Rule 45 has been made. If it is held that Ext. P-2 amendment is retrospective, fifth respondent cannot claim the post of Headmaster as he did not have, five years experience after attaining B.Ed. qualification. In that case, petitioner is entitled to hold the post of Headmaster. 5. As the amendment is for removal of doubts in interpreting Rule 45 of Chapter XIV K.E.R. it can only be construed as retrospective as it is declaratory. Presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. An Act to remove doubts regarding any law or the meaning or effect of any statute is a declaratory one and usually it is retrospective. In Madras Marine & Co. v. State of Madras ( A.I.R.1986 S.C.1760) the Supreme Court has approved what has been stated in Craies Statute Law. It is as follows: "For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined us an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word 'declared' as well as the word 'enacted' " While construing a statute as to whether it is retrospective or not it has necessarily to be considered whether it is merely declaratory of the previous law. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. [Sec Channan Singh v.JaiKaur(A.I.R 1970 S.C. 349 Para 5)]. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. [Sec Channan Singh v.JaiKaur(A.I.R 1970 S.C. 349 Para 5)]. Whenever an Act has been enacted to remove doubts or to impress upon the meaning or effect of a particular provision in the statute, the amendment Act is usually held to be retrospective. 6. As the Full Bench of this Court held in 1987 (2) K.L.T. 942 that the five years experience contemplated under Rule 45 should be after obtaining the graduation the rule 1 making authority chose to amend the Rule with a view to make it clear that what was intended as per the Rule is that the five years experience meant experience after obtaining B.Ed. In the Explanatory Note to the amendment of Rule 45 it is stated that the amendment has been made to remove doubts in interpreting Rule 45 of Chapter XIV of the K.E.R. Thus, it can be seen that the amendment is not remedial but declaratory. It is useful to re for to Page 87 of Francis bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 1984 Edition where it is slated: "A declaratory Act or enactment declares what the law is on a particular point, often or the avoidance of doubt'. The subject-matter may be a rule either of common law or statute. Since a declaratory provision does not purport to change the law, it is presumed to have retrospective effect. All this means is that the law as so declared is taken always to have been law in the case of a common law rule or to have been law since the commencement of the relevant enactment in the case of statutory provisions." In Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (page 224) it is stated:- "If a statute is in its nature a declaratory Act, the argument that it is not to be construed so as to take away previously vested rights is inapplicable." In view of the decision in 1987 (2) KLT942, the rule making authority wanted to make it clear that the acquisition of the qualification after B.Ed, alone will be considered. So it cannot be held to be prospective in operation. 7. Contention the fifth respondent that from the notification it can be seen that. So it cannot be held to be prospective in operation. 7. Contention the fifth respondent that from the notification it can be seen that. it has come into force a I once and this would indicate that it can not have any retrospective operation is not tenable. Counsel for the fifth respondent pointed out that fifth respondent has a vested right on 1-4-1988 to be appointed as Headmaster in accordance with Rule 45 as it stood then and so it cannot be deprived of by the amendment to Rule 45. It is also contended by the counsel that the fifth respondent having more than five years experience in leaching after his graduation in September, 1981 and having more service than half of the period of the service of the petitioner on 1-4-1988 being the date of occurrence of vacancy in the post of Headmaster has as authority vested preferential right to be appointed as the Headmaster of the School on 1-4-1988. The above contention is devoid of merit in view of the amendment of Rule 45 which has re I respective operation. 8. As amended Rule 45 has retrospective operation, it has to be held that fifth respondent did not have the necessary qualification when the vacancy of Headmaster-ship arose on 1-4-1988 as he did not have five years experience as teacher with B.Ed, qualification. That being the position, petitioner who has the necessary qualifications to be appointed as Headmistress of the School is entitled for such appointment. Il is hereby declared that the petitioner in O.P.3174of 1989 is the rightful claimant for the post of Headmistress in the School as from 1-4-1988. Third respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner in O.P.3174 of 1989 as the Headmistress of the School with effect from 1-4-1988 with consequential benefit of salary and other rights. 9. Contention of the fifth respondent (petitioner in O.P.2333 of 1989) that he is the rightful claimant for the post of Headmaster in the School is rightful claimant for the post of Headmaster in the School is without any legal basis. He is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in O.P.2333 of 1989. For the reasons staled above, O.P.3174 of 1989 is allowed and O.P.2333 of 1989 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.