JUDGMENT : The question which arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is with regard to the seniority of vocational and non-vocational teachers in aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools for the purpose of appointment as Administrative Head in such schools. These writ petitions are filed by vocational and non-vocational teachers. 2. The parties and documents are being referred to in this judgment as in W.P.(C). No.27108 of 2012 for the sake of convenience and clarity. The challenge in the writ petitions preferred by non-vocational teachers is directed against the Government Order dated 20.10.2012 and the order of the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education dated 03.11.2012. The Government, vide the impugned order, held that only those vocational and non-vocational teachers working against full time posts can be considered for the purpose of appointment as Administrative Head in aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. It is only when two teachers who have joined service as full time vocational or non-vocational teachers on the same day and are in service that the question of deciding their inter se seniority, according to their respective dates of births, the older being considered senior, arise. 3. In implementation of the said Government Order, the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education issued proceedings dated 03.11.2012 laying down the guidelines for preparation of seniority list for the purpose of giving charge to teachers as Administrative Head. It is stated therein that going by the Special Rules for Vocational Higher Secondary Education Service dated 12.03.2004, only full time vocational/non-vocational teachers having workload of more than 15 hours per week would be liable to be included in the seniority list to be prepared for appointment as Administrative Head. It is stated that non-vocational teachers who have less than 15 hours of work per week will not be entitled for inclusion in the list. It is only when there are no full time teachers available for appointments/charge as Administrative Heads that part time teachers can be considered. From the seniority list so prepared, the teacher having longest length of service should be appointed as Administrative Head. The seniority list was directed to be prepared in accordance with the guidelines as directed above. 4. It is only when there are no full time teachers available for appointments/charge as Administrative Heads that part time teachers can be considered. From the seniority list so prepared, the teacher having longest length of service should be appointed as Administrative Head. The seniority list was directed to be prepared in accordance with the guidelines as directed above. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, vocational teachers, raised a preliminary point that the issue raised in these writ petitions stands specifically covered against non-vocational teachers like the petitioners by virtue of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1423/2012 and connected cases. It is stated that the said judgment specifically provided that the 2004 Special Rules which were made applicable to aided schools also in the year 2007 provided for the counting of service after a teacher became senior or a full time teacher in the school and that seniority is to be counted only from the date of appointment as a senior teacher or from the date on which the junior teacher becomes a senior teacher. It is submitted that going by this declaration of law, the orders impugned were perfectly legal and justified and the petitioners in the connected writ petitions being non-vocational teachers who were appointed against posts which had only less than 12 hours of work per week could not be included in the seniority list for appointment as Administrative Head. However, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on an order dated 22.08.2016 in R.P.No.1125/2012 in Writ Appeal No.1424/2012 to contend that the question of persons like the petitioners who were appointed as non-vocational teachers during 1990-1991 where the distinction of part time teacher and full time teacher was not in existence and who had been regularised in service as full time teachers with all full time benefits long prior to the application of the Special Rules to aided school staff has been specifically left open by the order under review. Learned counsel relies on paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order in the review petition mentioned above which read as follows: "6. Learned counsel for the review petitioners contended that there are persons appointed in the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools as Teachers prior to introduction of the Special Rules. Presumably there exist some dispute with respect to the category in which they are continuing after the introduction of the Special Rules. Learned counsel for the review petitioners contended that there are persons appointed in the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools as Teachers prior to introduction of the Special Rules. Presumably there exist some dispute with respect to the category in which they are continuing after the introduction of the Special Rules. But such a dispute is not germane for consideration in the Writ Appeals or in the Writ Petitions which were decided by this Court. Nonetheless, such an issue need (not?) be considered in these Review Petitions also. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not think that any clarification or modification is required in the judgment. However, implementation of Exts.P4 and P19 should be done strictly in accordance with the observations contained herein, with respect to seniority of the teachers (both Vocational and Non-Vocational) to be considered for appointment as Principal/Administrative Heads". 5. It is, therefore, contended that the issue relating to the right of persons like the petitioners who were appointed long prior to the introduction of the Special Rules and whose services were regularised as non-vocational teachers from the date of their initial appointment is liable to be considered by this Court. 6. Heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the party respondents as also the learned Special Government Pleader attached to Advocate General appearing for the State of Kerala. 7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions that the non-vocational teachers in the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools had been appointed during the inception of Vocational Higher Secondary Education in the State, from the year 1991-1992 onwards. At that time, they were initially appointed on wages at an hourly basis and later at an honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month. Later, by competent orders of the Government, their appointments were regularised with effect from the dates of their initial appointment and they were given the scales of pay applicable to all teachers of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. All the benefits had been granted to them taking note of their long years of service from the date of their initial appointment itself. It is stated that it is only much later i.e., by Government Order dated 17.06.2004 that the distinction between non-vocational teacher (full time) and non-vocational teacher (part time) was created by the Government. 8. All the benefits had been granted to them taking note of their long years of service from the date of their initial appointment itself. It is stated that it is only much later i.e., by Government Order dated 17.06.2004 that the distinction between non-vocational teacher (full time) and non-vocational teacher (part time) was created by the Government. 8. It was held by G.O.(Rt) No.2495/2004/G.Edn dated 17.06.2004 that non-vocational teachers having workload of 12 to 20 hours per week will be treated as full time teachers and sanctioned the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 per month. The non-vocational teachers having workload of 6 to 11 hours per week will be treated as part time teachers and sanctioned the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 per month. The General Foundation subject teachers having workload of below 6 hours will be paid a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. However, the petitioners are persons appointed as non-vocational teachers and had been granted the scale of pay applicable to vocational teachers. According to them, after the issuance of circular dated 23.08.2004 (produced as Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) No.27108/2012) granting them fixation of salary in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 (pre-revised) which was applicable to vocational and non-vocational teachers in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools with effect from 08.06.1992 and after granting the existing teachers all the benefits of regularisation as non-vocational teachers from the date of their entry into service itself, in the case of teachers who entered service prior to the classification of non-vocational teachers as Non-Vocational Teacher (Junior) and Non-Vocational Teacher (Senior), it is not now open to the respondents to contend that the petitioners will not be included in the seniority list of teachers for deciding the issue of grant of charge as Administrative Head. 9. It is contended that the issue decided in Writ Appeal No.1424/2012 and connected cases was only that only full time teachers would be entitled to be included in the seniority list for appointment as Administrative Head. In the facts and circumstances of the petitioners' case, it is clear that they were persons regularised in service as full time teachers and granted all the benefits of such regularisation including scale of pay equivalent to that drawn by vocational teachers from the date of their appointment itself. In the facts and circumstances of the petitioners' case, it is clear that they were persons regularised in service as full time teachers and granted all the benefits of such regularisation including scale of pay equivalent to that drawn by vocational teachers from the date of their appointment itself. They were also appointed long prior to the distinction of non-vocational teacher (part time) and non-vocational teacher (full time) was first brought into effect and definitely long before the Special Rules for Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education State Service, 2004 were framed and later made applicable to the aided schools in the State. It is therefore contended that they, being non-vocational higher secondary school teachers, would be entitled to placement in the seniority list taking note of their date of entry into service and be granted all attendant benefits without reference to the number of periods taught by them. It is further contended that the presumption of more than 12 hours for creation of a full time post of non-vocational teacher as contained in Ext.P4 Special Rules has been found to be discriminatory and constitutionally invalid by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in Ext.P37 judgment. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the vocational teachers would, on the other hand, contend that the question of appointment of Administrative Head has arisen for consideration only after the Special Rules were framed and adopted to govern teachers of aided schools as well. Those Special Rules are not under challenge. The Special Rules provided for inter se seniority only between vocational and non-vocational teachers. It is clear from a reading of those Rules that part time teachers or junior teachers cannot be included in the list prepared since there can be no inter se seniority between part time teachers and full time teachers. It is only in the absence of full time teachers that part time teachers or junior teachers would become eligible for consideration for appointment as Administrative Head. It is contended that the issue stands completely concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1424/2012 and the order in the review which refused to clarify the judgment is being misconstrued to have left any legal question open. It is, therefore, contended that the judgment in the review further concludes the issue and nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions. 11. It is, therefore, contended that the judgment in the review further concludes the issue and nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions. 11. Learned Special Government Pleader (Finance) submits that the very issue of engagement of Administrative Heads in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools is of a transient nature since the proposal for framing separate Rules to govern appointments of Teachers and Principals in aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools is gaining the attention of the Government and Administrative Heads are appointed only in the interregnum without any promotion being effected and on the basis of seniority. It is contended that the Special Rules applicable to Vocational Higher Secondary teachers in Government schools have been made applicable and that the Rules specifically provided for junior and senior teachers among non-vocational teachers on the basis of the number of periods taught by them. It is, therefore, contended that since the grant of charge as Administrative Head is being considered at a time when Special Rules have been made applicable to aided schools as well, the preparation of seniority list can be only in accordance with the Special Rules and only those persons who answer the definition of non-vocational teachers (full time) would be entitled to inclusion in the seniority list. With regard to the contentions raised that the provision in the Special Rules as to the distinction between Non-vocational Teacher (Junior) Non-vocational Teacher (Senior) for the purpose of inclusion in the seniority list for appointment as Administrative Head has been struck down by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, it is contended that the said judgment is per incuriam. It is stated that the applicability of the Special Rules to aided school teachers also, the amendments to Special Rules by which the definition of teacher had been amended by making it dependant on the number of periods per week instead of number of hours as also by the inclusion of a quota for ministerial staff and aided school teachers in high school and upper primary sections, were completely omitted to be noted by the Administrative Tribunal and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the Special Rules suffered from vice of unconstitutionality is clearly per incuriam and cannot be relied on for any purpose. 12. Sri. 12. Sri. P. Santhalingam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19500/2012 contends that the non-vocational teachers were initially drawing a pay lower than that was drawn by vocational teachers whose appointments itself were made in a scale of pay and that where promotions are to be made from several posts having different scales of pay, employees who are working against posts carrying higher scales of pay are entitled to be considered in preference to those working in a lower scale of pay. This contention is opposed by the contesting respondents in the writ petition, by contending that they had been placed in the same scale of pay as vocational teachers and had been drawing all the benefits thereon with effect from the dates of their initial appointments. 13. I have considered the contentions advanced. After the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1423/2012 and connected cases and order in R.P.No.1125/2012, the only question that survives for consideration, according to me, is whether the petitioners who were appointed as non-vocational teachers in 1991-1992 and whose services were later regularised and who were granted all benefits including pay scale of regular full time teachers are entitled to be included in the seniority list of teachers for the purpose of granting charge as Administrative Heads in aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. The decision to treat the non-vocational teachers having a workload of 5 to 11 hours per week as part time teachers on a lower scale of pay was taken on 17.06.2004. The petitioners are teachers who had been appointed as non-vocational lecturers in aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. By Ext.P14 circular dated 23.08.2004, the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education had, relying on competent Government Orders, directed the fixation of salary of non-vocational teachers with effect from 08.06.1992 in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 (pre revised) on a notional basis irrespective of whether they had commenced service in the junior scale or not. It is therefore clear that all the petitioners had been granted the benefit of full time posts and fixation of their pay in the scale of pay applicable to full time teachers with effect from 08.06.1992. It is therefore clear that all the petitioners had been granted the benefit of full time posts and fixation of their pay in the scale of pay applicable to full time teachers with effect from 08.06.1992. The stipulation contained in the Special Rules for Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education and the Subordinate Service Rules framed in 2004 and made applicable to aided schools on 23.06.2007 cannot affect non-vocational teachers who had already been treated as full time teachers and been granted all the benefits of the same with effect from 08.06.1992. It is only on 19.01.2012 that Administrative Heads in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools were provided as a separate category. By the time, all the petitioners were working as non-vocational teachers in their respective schools and were drawing all the benefits of their appointment as such. 14. The finding in the judgment of the Division Bench that only non-vocational teachers as defined in the Special Rules can be included in the seniority list cannot therefore adversely affect the non-vocational teachers who had been regularised as such and had been given all benefits including scale of pay of full time teachers long prior to the date when the Special Rules were made applicable to aided schools. 15. I am, therefore, of the view that the provisions contained in the Special Rules dated 12.03.2004 which have been made applicable to aided schools by Government Order dated 23.06.2007 cannot be relied upon to deny the benefits of inclusion in the seniority list to persons who were appointed as non-vocational teachers much prior to the introduction of such Special Rules and who were granted approval as full time teachers and extended the benefit of full time scale of pay with effect from 08.06.1992. In the above view of the matter, W.P.(C) Nos.19500 of 2012, 14096 of 2013 and 27421 of 2014 are dismissed, and W.P.(C) Nos.27108, 30257 and 30588 of 2012 and W.P.(C) Nos.5135, 5998 and 10417 of 2013, and W.P.(C) No.33496 of 2016 are allowed. It is directed that the petitioners in these writ petitions shall be entitled to inclusion in the seniority list and consequential appointment as Administrative Head in accordance with their seniority as non-vocational teacher without reference to their workload. It is directed that the petitioners in these writ petitions shall be entitled to inclusion in the seniority list and consequential appointment as Administrative Head in accordance with their seniority as non-vocational teacher without reference to their workload. Consequential orders shall be passed by the competent among the respondents preparing the seniority list and finalising the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Government is directed to expedite the steps for framing of Rules for determining seniority and appointment to teaching and non-teaching staff in the aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools as held out in the Government Orders as well as affidavits filed in these cases. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.