JUDGMENT : Surendra Mohan, J. These Writ appeals are filed by the State challenging judgments of Single Judges allowing a number of Writ Petitions filed by Higher Secondary School Teachers. As per the judgments appealed against, the teachers have been directed to be approved as Higher Secondary School Teachers from the beginning of the academic year 2011-12 onwards. Since common questions arise for consideration in all the appeals, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per a Government order dated 20.07.2010, sanction was accorded to start 178 new Higher Secondary Schools in aided and Government sectors in Thrissur District and six districts of Malabar area from the academic year 2010-11 onwards. As per the said Government Order, with the object of commencing classes during 2010-11 academic year itself, sanction was granted for engaging guest lecturers in the newly sanctioned Higher Secondary Schools till regular teaching posts were created. Subsequently, as per a separate Government order dated 24.10.2011, sanction was accorded to create posts of Principals and teachers in 146 aided Higher Secondary Schools with effect from 06.08.2011 (i.e. from the academic year 2010-11) onwards. For the subsequent year, though the posts were required to be upgraded, no orders were issued. Finally, by a Government Order dated 23.02.2013, creation and upgradation of the posts as HSST was ordered but with the rider that the sanction would have only prospective effect. Consequently, the Higher Secondary School teachers who had been working from the year 2010-11 onwards were granted upgradation only from 23.02.2013 onwards. It was challenging the said condition in exhibit P3 that the Writ Petitions were filed before this Court. According to the petitioners, upgradation of the posts should have been with retrospective effect coinciding with the date on which they had qualified to be upgraded in terms of Rule 1(d) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER for short). Therefore, it was contended that limiting the upgradation to the period from 2013 onwards was unjust and liable to be set aside. 3. The Writ Petition was contested by the State, by filing a counter affidavit. According to the counter affidavit, the decision on the question as to whether upgradation should be granted or not was within the realm of the policy of the Government. 3. The Writ Petition was contested by the State, by filing a counter affidavit. According to the counter affidavit, the decision on the question as to whether upgradation should be granted or not was within the realm of the policy of the Government. The teachers had no right to insist on upgradation of the posts to which they had been appointed from any particular date, as sought for by them. It was also pointed out that, since upgradation of the posts involved, financial commitments for the Government, no writ could be issued compelling the Government to grant upgradation from a particular date. 4. W.A.No.724 of 2015 is treated as the leading case insofar as this batch is concerned. We shall therefore, refer to the documents with respect to the said case. In the Original Petition from which the said appeal arises, the learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, found that there was no justification for limiting the upgradation of the posts from an arbitrary date, the date on which exhibit P3 Government Order was issued. Therefore, the said Government Order to the extent to which it limited the upgradation of the posts prospectively from the date of the Government Order has been set aside. The upgradation has been directed to relate back and to apply from the date of the academic year 2011-12 subject to physical verification as to whether the teachers were qualified to hold the posts of HSST in terms of Rule 1(d) of Chapter XXXII of the KER. The said decision has been followed by the Single Benches in the other cases also. The State has come up in appeal against all such decisions. 5. According to the learned Advocate General who has appeared for the appellants, the learned Single Judge has omitted to take note of the fact that upgradation of the posts as HSST would involve financial commitments on the part of the Government. Therefore, it was absolutely within the realm of policy of the Government to decide when and from what date such financial commitment should be incurred. Therefore, it was absolutely within the realm of policy of the Government to decide when and from what date such financial commitment should be incurred. Reliance is placed on Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass [ 2008 (1) SCC 683 ], Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd [ 2007 (1) SCC 408 ], Executive Director, I.T.School Project v. Saranya [ 2009 (3) KLT 824 ], Union of India v. P.N.Menon [ (1994) 4 SCC 68 ] as well as a number of other decisions in support of his contention that wherever financial commitments are involved, the Government was free to take its own decision with respect to creation of posts. It is also contended that, as per exhibit P1 that sanctioned Higher Secondary Schools, the teachers were permitted to be appointed only as guest faculty until regular hands were appointed. As per exhibit P2 Government Order, posts of HSST (Junior) were created only with effect from 06.08.2011. If as directed by the learned Single Judge, upgradation as HSST were to be granted from the commencement of the academic year 2011-12, such benefit would have to be granted to the teachers with effect from a date even prior to 06.08.2011 for the reason that, the academic year of 2011-12 would have commenced in June 2011 itself. The said incongruity, according to the learned Advocate General, shows that the learned single Judge has omitted to take note of a very vital aspect of the matter. 5. The contentions of the learned Advocate General are opposed by the respective counsel appearing for the teachers. The contentions on the part of the teachers were led by Advocate K.T.ShyamKumar. We have also heard Advocates K.V.Reshmi, Binoy Vasudevan and Kaleeswaram Raj for the teachers. The main contention put forward is that, though as per exhibit P1 only guest lecturers were permitted to be appointed, as per exhibit P2 sufficient posts were sanctioned. The teachers were initially appointed as guest lecturers. However, they were approved against the posts created as per exhibit P2 as HSST(Junior). The HSST that was sanctioned in the year 2010-11, had continued during the said academic year and therefore during 2011-12 academic year, the students had come to the second year of the Plus Two course, and they were being taught during the said academic year also by the very same teachers. The HSST that was sanctioned in the year 2010-11, had continued during the said academic year and therefore during 2011-12 academic year, the students had come to the second year of the Plus Two course, and they were being taught during the said academic year also by the very same teachers. It is contended that, during the academic year 2011-12, the number of periods engaged by them had substantially increased and had exceeded the limit stipulated by the definition in chapter XXXII justifying the creation of sufficient posts of HSST. It was taking note of the above factual scenario that the Director of Higher Secondary Education had recommended creation of sufficient posts. But the State had without taking note of the reality, while issuing exhibit P3 Government Order, limited its benefits prospectively from the date of the Government Order. The said stipulation was without any basis and has been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that as per Chapter XXXII of KER, it is the Director who has to sanction posts. The previous practice has always been to sanction posts only from the commencement of the academic year. Here an arbitrary date has been adopted which is clearly unsustainable. It is contended that creation of posts and upgradation of posts are two different things. Though the Government has a discretion in creation of posts, there is no such discretion in the matter of upgradation of posts. This is for the reason that, once 15 periods are exceeded, the work load justifies the upgradation of the post. The Director has acted in accordance with the stipulations contained in the Statute. After having extracted work from the teachers, there is no justification for denying them the salary for two years by giving only prospective operation to exhibit P3 Government Order. It is the said illegality that has been rectified by the judgments against which appeals are filed. Therefore, the counsel seeks dismissal of the appeals. 6. We have considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously. In the above context, it is necessary to notice that Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII governs the manner in which posts are to be sanctioned to Higher Secondary Schools. Rule 3 to the extent relevant reads as under:- 3. Therefore, the counsel seeks dismissal of the appeals. 6. We have considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously. In the above context, it is necessary to notice that Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII governs the manner in which posts are to be sanctioned to Higher Secondary Schools. Rule 3 to the extent relevant reads as under:- 3. The Kerala Aided Higher Secondary Education Service-The service of every aided Higher Secondary School shall consist of all or any of the following categories of posts as the Director may sanction. [Emphasis supplied] 7. What is necessary to be noticed from the above provision is that, the service of every aided Higher Secondary School is directed to consist of all or any of the categories of posts mentioned therein “as the Director may sanction”. Therefore, the authority to sanction posts, going by rule 3 above is the Director of Higher Secondary Education. In the above context, the definitions in Rule 1 (d) and (e) being relevant are extracted herein below:- (d) 'Higher Secondary School Teacher' means a Higher Secondary School Teacher of an aided school whose work load is 15 or more periods per week per subject. (e) 'Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior)' means a Higher Secondary School Teacher of an aided school whose work load is less than 15 periods per week per subject. The above Rules stipulate that a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) means a Higher Secondary School Teacher whose workload is less than 15 periods per week. A Higher Secondary School Teacher means a Higher School Teacher whose workload is 15 or more periods per week per subject. It therefore follows that, a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) has to be upgraded to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher, once the workload exceeds 15 periods per week. The above exercise has to be done by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, going by Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII. It is only in the matter of creation of posts that the State has power. As per exhibit P2, posts of HSST (Junior) were sanctioned by the Government with effect from 06.08.2011 onwards. The question as to whether the said posts were to be upgraded to HSST would depend on whether the workload had exceeded 15 hours per week. The authority to assess the said situation and to sanction such upgradation is the Director of Higher Secondary Education. The question as to whether the said posts were to be upgraded to HSST would depend on whether the workload had exceeded 15 hours per week. The authority to assess the said situation and to sanction such upgradation is the Director of Higher Secondary Education. In the present case, the Director of Higher Secondary Education had recommended for such sanction to the Government. The Government accepted the said recommendation and has issued exhibit P3 Government Order upgrading the posts but subject to the condition that such upgradation shall take effect only prospectively from the date of the order. Though we have tried to ascertain the basis for fixing the date of the Government Order as the date from which such upgradation has been directed to take effect, the only explanation is that since the matter involved financial commitments, it was part of the policy of the Government to do so. We find no other explanation. Since going by the Rules, the upgradation has to depend on increase in the workload of a teacher beyond 15 periods, it cannot be said that upgradation is a matter of policy of the Government. The policy of the Government would end when posts are sanctioned by it. Thereafter, upgradation would have to depend on the parameters contained in Chapter XXXII KER, referred to above. In these cases, as the Higher Secondary Schools were sanctioned during the year 2010, it is not in dispute that the courses had continued to be conducted thereafter, without any break. Therefore, the students who were admitted in the year 2010-11, would certainly have come to the second year of the course during 2011-12. The teachers who were appointed initially as guest lecturers have been accommodated in the newly sanctioned posts of HSST (Junior), with effect from 06.08.2011 onwards. The question as to whether they were entitled to be upgraded as HSST would depend on the workload of each one of them, as indicated above. It is taking into account the said aspect that the learned Single Judge has found the stipulation in exhibit P3 limiting the operation thereof to the period from the date of the said order to be unjustified. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding. 8. It is taking into account the said aspect that the learned Single Judge has found the stipulation in exhibit P3 limiting the operation thereof to the period from the date of the said order to be unjustified. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding. 8. Though it has been vehemently contended placing reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court that this Court should not interfere with matters of policy of the Government, we are not satisfied that said decisions have any application to the facts of these cases, as indicated above. These are cases where the matter entirely rest on the question as to whether the workload of the teachers were in excess of 15 periods or not. In view of the above distinction in facts, we refrain from considering the effect of the decisions on which reliance has been placed. In the result, these appeals fail, they are all dismissed with the only clarification that, the entitlement of the teachers to be upgraded as HSST would depend on the verification to be conducted by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, as directed by the learned Single Judge. The appeals are all dismissed.