ORDER : A.M. Shaffique, J. The Writ Petitions have been referred to this Court based on a reference order dated 29/5/2019 of the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.755/2018 relates to a similar issue and are heard and decided together. 2. The issue referred relates to interpretation of the 3rd proviso to Rule 44A of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) inserted as per Gazette notification dated 13.12.2017, and brought into force w.e.f. 1.06.2015. Rule 44A with the provisos reads as under: “44A. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 44, the minimum service qualification for appointment as Headmaster in Aided Complete High Schools/Training schools shall be twelve years of continuous graduate service with a pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules and a pass in account Test (Lower) conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission: [Provided that Headmasters of High and Training Schools, who were actually holding the said post on the eleventh day of June, 1974 shall stand exempted from passing the Account Test (Lower)]: Provided further that Teachers who have attained the age of 50 years shall stand exempted permanently from acquiring the test qualification specified in sub-rule (1): Provided also that, notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso, in the case of appointment to the post of Headmaster, preference shall be given to those teachers who have acquired the test qualifications specified in this rule.” 3. By virtue of the third proviso, teachers with test qualifications as provided under Rule 44A are given preference for appointment to the post of Headmasters, as against teachers who do not have the test qualification. The question is whether the said proviso has only prospective operation and whether it negates the right of certain teachers who had obtained the benefit of second proviso. 4. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge observed that there has been conflicting views expressed by a few Division Bench judgments of this court and accordingly, the Registry was directed to place the matter for consideration before a Bench of more Judges. 5. In fact, prior to the aforesaid reference order, the learned Single Judge had taken a decision in W.P.(C) No.19421/2017 against which W.A.No.755/2018 had been filed. 5. In fact, prior to the aforesaid reference order, the learned Single Judge had taken a decision in W.P.(C) No.19421/2017 against which W.A.No.755/2018 had been filed. In the said case it was held that a test qualified person cannot have any preference for appointment, as against the petitioner who is the senior most HSA and above 50 years, who is entitled for the exemption as provided in the second proviso to Rule 44A. The said judgment was rendered based on the Division Bench judgment in Manager Pavandoor Higher Secondary School v. Sadanandan C.M. & Ors. (2016 (5) KHC 781). Both these judgments were rendered prior to the amendment, incorporating the 3rd proviso to Rule 44A, when a Government order dated 10/6/2015 was in force, which provided that teachers having test qualification have preference to be promoted as Headmaster, vis-a-vis teachers who availed the benefit of second proviso to Rule 44A. The Government Order was held to be invalid in the absence of a specific Rule. 6. During the pendency of the above matters, another Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider an almost similar issue in W.A.No.925/2019 decided as per judgment dated 28.3.2019 (Harifa Beevi Kalen v. The Manager P.P.M. Higher Secondary School and Others). This Court after considering the effect of amendment bringing in 3rd proviso to Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA KER held that in so far as the Headmaster was appointed on 01.4.2017 on the strength of permanent exemption which he had, by virtue of the 2nd proviso to Rule 44A(1) of Chapter XIVA of KER and since the benefit had already inured to him, it cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the 3rd proviso. It was therefore held that the amendment bringing in 3rd proviso to Rule 44A will only have prospective operation. 7. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Several judgments had been cited by the respective counsels and we shall refer to them later as and when it is necessary. 8. There are two category of teachers. One category of teachers are test qualified as provided under Rule 44A. The second category consists of teachers who are above the age of 50 years, and without test qualification. 9. Several judgments had been cited by the respective counsels and we shall refer to them later as and when it is necessary. 8. There are two category of teachers. One category of teachers are test qualified as provided under Rule 44A. The second category consists of teachers who are above the age of 50 years, and without test qualification. 9. The argument raised by the first category is that there cannot be a permanent exemption for teachers from acquiring the test qualification and that apart, when a rule has been made with retrospective effect, it has to be implemented as such and there are no circumstances creating a vested right on any employee for promotion. The argument of second category of teachers is that the amendment to the 3rd proviso cannot have any retrospective operation in so far as their vested rights cannot be affected, and that apart, in the light of the exemption granted to them in terms of the 2nd proviso to Rule 44A, appointment to the post of Headmaster has to be made from among the senior among those teachers who are permanently exempted from acquiring test qualification. 10. Sri. P.V. Mohanan, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.755/2018 while impugning the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19421/2017 contended that G.O.(Ms.) No. 157/2015/G.Edn.dated 10.6.2015 governed the field by which test qualified teachers were given preference for being promoted as Headmaster as against those teachers who were exempted from acquiring the test qualification. It was inter alia argued that a Division Bench of this Court while considering the Government Order dated 10.6.2015 in Sadanandan (supra) did not advert to earlier Division Bench judgment in Pankajakshy & Ors. v. George Mathew & Ors. ( 1987 (2) KLT 723 ). In Pankajakshy’s case (supra), this Court had deprecated the practice of extending time for acquiring the test qualification and when the rules are amended with retrospective effect, necessarily it has to be considered in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Pankajakshy’s case (supra). He also argued based on the judgment in S.S.Bola & Ors. In Pankajakshy’s case (supra), this Court had deprecated the practice of extending time for acquiring the test qualification and when the rules are amended with retrospective effect, necessarily it has to be considered in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Pankajakshy’s case (supra). He also argued based on the judgment in S.S.Bola & Ors. v. B.D.Sardana and other ( AIR 1997 SC 3127 ) that the power to regulate the rules of conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with retrospective effect, though the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, The only inhibition therefore is that the amendment with retrospective effect shall not affect or impair vested rights. A similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Virender Singh Hooda & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. ((2004) 12 5CC 588), He further placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in I.N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1976 SC 2250 ) in order to emphasise the distinction between a legislative act and a judicial act. The argument is that when in Pankajakshy’s case (supra), a Division Bench of the High Court had held that extending time for teachers to acquire the test qualification is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, no law can be made to annul the same. In I.N.Saksena’s case (supra), it was held that the legislature cannot by a bare declaration without more, directly overrule, reverse or override a judicial decision. It may at any time in exercise of its plenary powers render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law on a topic within its legislative field, fundamentally altering or changing with retrospective, curative or neutralising effect, the conditions on which such decision is based. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the teachers coming under the 2nd category placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chairman, Railway Board and Others v. C.R.Rangadhamaiah & Ors. ((1997) 6 5CC 623). By this judgment, the Apex Court after referring to several earlier judgments on the point held that no retrospective operation can be given to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority and substantive appointment of employees. ((1997) 6 5CC 623). By this judgment, the Apex Court after referring to several earlier judgments on the point held that no retrospective operation can be given to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority and substantive appointment of employees. There cannot be an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already given to the employee under the existing rule. Any such amendment would be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in K.Narayanan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 44). A Division Bench of this Court has also laid down a similar proposition in Stalin v. State of Kerala ( 2006 (1) KLT 493 ). 12. In Pankajakshy’s case (supra), this Court was considering the validity of an amendment dated 24.3.1986 to Rule 45B of Chapter XIV A of KER, which exempted all aided Primary School Teachers from acquiring test qualification for promotion as Headmaster of Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools for a further period of two years from 01.04.1986. Though the Government prescribed certain test qualification for appointment of Headmaster in aided Lower Primary Schools as early as in 1978, exemption was being granted from time to time, the last of which was for two years from 01.04.1986 to 31.3.1988, by way of an amendment to Rule 45B(3) of Chapter XIVA of KER. Teachers who were fully qualified challenged the validity of the amendment. It was held that: “14. In Kerala we have Government schools under the control of the Government and aided and recognised schools covered by the Kerala Education Act and the Rules. The headmasters in all these schools practically discharge the same duties. The Government was therefore right when it decided to fix uniform qualifications for the headmasters of Lower Primary Schools, whether they be Government Schools or aided or recognised schools, As obligatory test, the Account Test (Lower) was prescribed for the headmasters of Government L.P.Schools by an executive order dated 4.8.1976. Two years thereafter, in 1978, it was held that the same obligatory test should be prescribed for headmasters of aided and recognised schools. The amendment to R.45B in 1978 is thus not open to challenge and is not challenged. Two years thereafter, in 1978, it was held that the same obligatory test should be prescribed for headmasters of aided and recognised schools. The amendment to R.45B in 1978 is thus not open to challenge and is not challenged. The teachers in Government schools were given exemption for two years. The same period of exemption was granted under R.45B(3) in 1978. That also cannot be in challenge and is not in challenge. Thereafter departing from the rules applicable to headmasters of Government schools, the teachers in aided and recognised schools alone were given extension of exemption continuously from 1980, for eight years, a favoured treatment which has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, to assure competency, efficiency, and efficacy in headmasters, as the head of educational institutions. Proficiency of the headmasters of Lower Primary Schools should be the same, whether the school is Government or aided or recognised. Nobody has a case, and none can have any that the headmasters of aided and recognised L P. Schools need not be as efficient as the headmasters of Government L. P, Schools. If so, the dilution of the essential qualifications and the continuous extension granted from 1978, specially to the aided and recognised school headmasters cannot have judicial approval as a reasonable classification. It is in fact, no classification at all, much less any reasonable classification. In this view, the impugned exemption from 1986 to 1988 is plainly violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 15. We are also of the view that the impugned amendment is unreasonable and arbitrary and beyond the powers conferred under the Act itself. The Act is intended to meet the educational needs of the State effectively and to maintain uniform standards of discipline and teaching in all the educational institutions governed by the Act It is to achieve this object that power has been conferred to make rules. It is in pursuance of this power that R.45-B was made imposing certain obligatory tests for appointment as headmasters. It is in pursuance of this power that R.45-B was made imposing certain obligatory tests for appointment as headmasters. When these tests are later suspended for a sufficiently long time, the relaxation of the rules beyond the initial period of two years has to be annulled on the ground that it is unreasonable and arbitrary, not warranted by the provisions of the Act, and thus beyond the Act itself The amendment challenged has to fail on both grounds; (1) beyond the powers conferred under the Act and (2) violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.” Still further, it was held as under: “We are of the view that R.45B(3) applies to all teachers awaiting promotion even after 1978. When the amendment made in 1986 extending the period of exemption till 31-3-1988 is annulled as unconstitutional, sub-clause (5) of R.45B is immediately attracted and the teachers who were appointed after 1978 as headmasters, who have failed to acquire the qualifications before 1.4.1986 have to be reverted. Teachers who have attained the age of 50 years before 1.4.1986 are deemed to be qualified because of the permanent exemption”. Accordingly the amendment to R.45B(3) in Chapter XIVA of the KER inserted by the amendment dated 12th August, 1986 in G.O.(P) No.139/86/G.Edn. was struck down as unconstitutional and beyond the rule making authority of the Government. 13. Apparently, in Pankajakshy’s case (supra), this court did not consider the validity of permanent exemption being granted to teachers who had attained the age of 50 years. The validity of Rule 45B(3) by which time was extended to teachers for acquiring the requisite qualification alone was under challenge. This court also observed that those teachers who had attained the age of 50 years as on 1/4/1986 was permanently exempted from acquiring the test qualification. 14. It is apparent from the above proposition of law that grant of exemption for acquiring the test qualification was not absolute even going by Pankajakshy’s case (supra). Acquisition of test qualification under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules was prescribed under Rule 44A of Chapter XIV A KER as early as in the year 1968 and Account Test (lower) in the year 1976. Over a period of time, exemption had been given to the teachers for acquiring the qualification which was found to be unconstitutional in Pankajakshy’s case (supra). Over a period of time, exemption had been given to the teachers for acquiring the qualification which was found to be unconstitutional in Pankajakshy’s case (supra). It is to give benefit to those teachers who had acquired the test qualification to be promoted as Headmasters in preference to those teachers who were given permanent exemption on attaining the age of 50 years that the Government Order dated 10.6.2015 had been issued. We are of the view that the said Government Order was strictly in compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench in Pankajakshy’s case (supra). It is trite that in terms of Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER it is possible for the Government to issue appropriate orders to avoid hardship in any particular instance. An exemption granted for teachers who had not acquired test qualification until the age of 50 years is not a vested right at all. It is only an exemption granted to teachers who had crossed the age of 50. When Rule 44A lays down that the Headmasters should be teachers having test qualification, such teachers ought to be preferred from among teachers who had not acquired the test qualification. In which event, seniority by itself may not be a criteria. However, when a rule permits teachers above the age of 50 years to become Headmasters without acquisition of test qualification, necessarily, when the Government directs that preference is to be given to teachers having test qualification with retrospective effect from 1/6/2015, it cannot be termed as taking away any vested right. To that extent, we don’t agree with the view expressed in Sadanandan’s case (supra) and Harifa Beevi Kalen (supra). In the light of the view expressed by us and the conflicting view expressed in the judgments in Sadanandan’s case (supra) and Harifa Beevi Kalen (supra), we are of the view that the matter is required to be heard by a Larger Bench. The Registry shall place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.