JUDGMENT : Competing and opposing claims to the post of Principal/ Administrative Head of the Vocational Higher Secondary School, Karavaram, has led to these writ petitions being filed; with one of the main issues posed being: if a teacher, who has been on leave for more than a decade continuously, would still be eligible to stake a claim to such appointment. 2. Among the four writ petitions, W.P.(C)No. 22171/2020 has been filed by Smt.Priyadarsini S; W.P.(C)No. 22198/2020 has been filed by Sri.S.Hariharan Pillai; W.P.(C) No.23044/2020 has been filed by Smt.Sindhu B. and W.P.(C) No.27668/2020 has been filed by the Manager of the School. 3. Compendiously, the facts without dispute are that Smt.Priyadarsini was appointed as a Vocational Teacher in the School on 01.12.1995; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher on 03.02.1997. Before Sri.Hariharan Pillai had been so appointed, Smt.Sindhu was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) in the School with effect from 29.01.1996 and she asserts that she became a Non Vocational Teacher with effect from 01.07.1996. 4. While so, Smt.Priyadarsini took Leave Without Allowance (LWA) under the provisions of Appendix XIIA and XIIC of Part-I of the Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short) for the period from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018 and rejoined on 09.03.2018. 5. Subsequent to the rejoining of Smt.Priyadarsini, the vacancy of the Administrative Head/Principal of the School arose on 01.06.2020 and all the three aforementioned Teachers laid a claim to the same. The Manager of the School, however, appointed Sri.Hariharan Pillai as the 'Principal-in-charge' of the School, through order dated 01.06.2020, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P6(a) in W.P.(C)No.22198/2020. 6. Smt.Sindhu, thereupon, laid a claim to be appointed to such vacancy in preference to Sri.Hariharan Pillai, based on the seniority list of Teachers in the School for the year 2017 - a copy of which is on record as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, wherein, she had been shown to be senior to Sri.Hariharan Pillai. Pertinently, Smt.Priyadarsini was not included therein because she was continuing on LWA at that time. 7. The Manager, however, in the meanwhile, appears to have revised the seniority list and published a new one for the year 2018, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P15 along with W.P(C)No. 23044/2020. 8. Pertinently, Smt.Priyadarsini was not included therein because she was continuing on LWA at that time. 7. The Manager, however, in the meanwhile, appears to have revised the seniority list and published a new one for the year 2018, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P15 along with W.P(C)No. 23044/2020. 8. In this Seniority List, Smt.Priyadarsini is shown to be senior to both Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu and Sri.Hariharan Pillai has been shown to be senior to Smt.Sindhu, citing the reason that she became a Non Vocational Teacher only with effect from 05.08.1997. Smt.Sindhu, being aggrieved, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.4046/2020, in which operation of the said List had been initially stayed. 9. However, pending the said lis, the Manager appointed Sri.Hariharan Pillai as the Principal of the School and this was brought to the notice of this Court by Smt.Sindhu in W.P.(C)No.4046/2020. 10. As a result, W.P.(C)No.4046/2020 was disposed of by this Court through judgment dated 15.07.2020, in the following manner: “The dispute in this writ petition is with respect to the seniority and eligibility for appointment as Principal. 2. The petitioner, who is a Non-Vocational teacher in English claims that she is senior and entitled to be promoted as Principal. 3. At the same time, the 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is the teacher, eligible for appointment as Principal. 4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P15 seniority list on the ground that the same is prepared in violation of the judgments of this Court and also without referring to the settled seniority. 5. The party respondents have filed counter affidavits and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. Along with I.A. No.4/2020, petitioner has produced Ext.P27 appeal submitted before the 2nd respondent challenging the seniority list. As the issue is to be decided at the 1st instance by the department after hearing, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the claims raised by the rival parties. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P27 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents 4 to 8 and any other teacher, who is likely to be affected, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P27 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents 4 to 8 and any other teacher, who is likely to be affected, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till such time, status quo shall be maintained.” 11. Based on the afore directions of this Court, the Director of General Education (DGE) heard the parties, finally issuing an order dated 28.09.2020, wherein, he held that Smt.Sindhu is entitled to be reckoned as senior to Sri.Hariharan Pillai; while Smt.Priyadarsini was found not eligible to be promoted as the Principal or Administrative Head of the School on account of the fact that she had been on LWA for more than thirteen and half years (this order will hereinafter be referred as the 'order of the DGE'). 12. This order has been challenged by Sri.Hariharan Pillai in W.P.(C)No.22198/2020 as also by the Manager of the School in W.P.(C)No.27668/2020 and by Smt.Priyadarsini in W.P.(C)No. 22171/2020; while Smt.Sindhu has filed W.P.(C)No.23044/2020 to have the same order implemented. 13. I have heard Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Sindhu; Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Hariharan Pillai; Sri.V.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Priyadarsini; Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Manager of the School and Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala and Educational Authorities. 14. As is luculent from the afore epigrammatic narration of facts, the essential questions before this Court are whether: a) Smt.Priyadarshini, who is conceded to be the senior most among all the Teachers, would be entitled to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal in spite of the fact that she was on LWA from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018 and; (b) whether Sri.Hariharan Pillai can stake to be senior to Smt.Sindhu, because he was initially appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher; while the latter was initially appointed only as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time). 15. I propose to consider the first issue initially because, if Smt.Priyadarsini is found eligible to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School, then the other two writ petitions would become unnecessary of consideration, since Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu are concededly juniors to her, reckoning their initial date of joining. 16. 15. I propose to consider the first issue initially because, if Smt.Priyadarsini is found eligible to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School, then the other two writ petitions would become unnecessary of consideration, since Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu are concededly juniors to her, reckoning their initial date of joining. 16. Sri.V.Varghese, learned counsel for Smt.Priyadarsini, relied upon Rule 4 of Appendix XIIC Part--I of the KSR to assert that Teachers who are granted LWA will loose their service benefits, including earning of leave, increment, gratuity, pension, etc., and also to the promotion chances only during and for the currency of the period of leave. Sri.V.Varghese, therefore, asserted that since his client had rejoined duty on 09.03.2018 and since the post of Principal became vacant in the School only on 01.06.2020, she is entitled to be considered for such post, notwithstanding with the fact that she was on LWA from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018. 17. Sri.Varghese relied upon the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Nirmaladevi v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2010 (1) KLT 16 ] in support of his above contention, pointing out that it has been held without doubt therein that a Teacher will not lose seniority during the period of leave and that she/he will become entitled for promotion to the vacancy which arose after the leave period. 18. In opposition to this, Sri.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Sindhu, submitted that since the Special Rules for Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education State Services, 2004 have not yet been made applicable to the aided sector, the provisions of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) ought to govern the appointment of Principal. He showed me that, going by Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the KER, only the Teachers who have continuous teaching experience of twelve years would be eligible to be appointed as the Principal. 19. He showed me that, going by Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the KER, only the Teachers who have continuous teaching experience of twelve years would be eligible to be appointed as the Principal. 19. As an alternative contention, Sri.Unnikrishnan submitted that, going by the judgments of the learned Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. M.M.Thomas and others [ 2015 (1) KHC 502 ] and Shaji Sanjayi Nottithodi v. Managing Director, Kerala State Transport Corporation and others [ 2017 (3) KHC 631 ], all service benefits that a person would obtain while in service would be lost when he/she rejoins after the period of LWA and that this has been rendered cystally clear by this Court. He, therefore, prayed that the 'order of the DGE' be directed to be implemented forthwith and his client be ordered to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School in question forthwith. 20. When I consider the syllogistic submissions of the learned counsel on this aspect, it is without any reason for doubt that Rule 4 Appendix XIIC of the KSR renders it unmistakable that an officer on LWA will lose service benefits, including leave, increment, gratuity, pension etc., as also promotion chances 'for and during the currency of the period of leave'. Sri.V.Varghese submits that this can only mean that when the Teacher rejoins duty and a promotion vacancy arises thereafter, he/she will also be eligible to be considered for such post. 21. That said, as regards the contention of Sri.Varghese based on Nirmaladevi (supra) is concerned, it is doubtless that the learned Division Bench of this Court has held that since the vacancy to the post of Headmaster did not arise during the period when the Teacher was on leave, she was entitled to be considered for promotion subsequently, since she would not lose seniority on account of her having proceeded on such leave. 22. However, it must be borne in mind that Nirmaladevi (supra) was delivered in the year 2009, while the aforementioned Full Bench Judgments were delivered much later, in the years 2015 and 2017 respectively. 23. That apart, in Nirmaladevi (supra), what was being interpreted was Rules 37 and 56 Chapter XIVA of the KER, which, concededly, have no application to the facts of this case or to the service involved herein. 24. 23. That apart, in Nirmaladevi (supra), what was being interpreted was Rules 37 and 56 Chapter XIVA of the KER, which, concededly, have no application to the facts of this case or to the service involved herein. 24. The promotion to the post of Principal in the School in question is governed by the Government Order dated 19.01.2012, a copy of which has been appended as Ext.P11 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, wherein, it has been postulated that the senior most Vocational or Non Vocational Teacher will be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal. 25. Therefore, what is indubitable is that the Government recognizes the seniority of a Teacher to act as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School and consequently, the experience garnered by the said Teacher for discharging the duties of the said post effectively. The tenor of the Government Order is very clear that only that teachers who has had more experience than the other teachers in the School would be entitled to be appointed as the Principal and going by the said precept, Smt.Priyadarsini would lose all chances of being posted as the Administrative Head of the School, since she was, admittedly, on LWA for more than 13½ years. 26. Thus, even though the argument of Sri.V.Varghese would sound strong from the touchstone of Appendix XIIC Part-I of the KSR, the declarations of this Court in M.M.Thomas (supra) and Shaji Sanjayi Nottithodi (supra) would cast a large amount of cloud on the same. This is because, after considering the provisions of grant of LWA in detail, the Full Bench declared utinfrain M.M.Thomas (supra): “53. When no increment is admissible for such period under leave without allowances, there is no question of grant of any benefit towards the period during which a teacher served another employer in a foreign country. There can be no addition to his pay towards such period of absence. Therefore the period during which the teachers of Private Colleges did not discharge their duties in the respective Colleges or in other words while they were serving another employer in another country and remained on leave without allowances for that purpose, even in the absence of any provision for the same, which does not count for increments, can in no manner be reckoned towards placement as Senior Grade Lecturer, Selection Grade Lecturer, etc. 54. 54. Just because the orders implementing UGC Scheme provide for placement on completion of the stipulated number of years of service, or because the orders issued by the educational agencies granting them leave did not contain any restrictions or the consequences, the Private College Teachers cannot be given a further incentive for the period they served a foreign employer on their own will and pleasure, without considering the purpose for which placement is given. The UGC scheme was introduced only in the year 1990. The orders granting leave to the teachers were issued was officiating at the time he proceeded on leave or deputation and would have continued to officiate but for his proceeding on leave or deputation.” 27. Subsequently, in the year 2017, in Shaji Sanjayi Nottithodi (supra), the learned Full Bench reiterated these aspects in paragraph No.13 thereof, which is reproduced below for ease of reference: “13. Coming to the issue relating to cadre promotion, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that generally grade promotion provides monetary incentives without raising the rank of the employee, whereas the cadre promotion not only provides for monetary incentives but also raises the rank of the employee. The recruitment rules which are produced by the Corporation in W.A.No.1128 of 2015 indicate that only the incumbents in the highest grade of the feeder category are entitled to be considered for cadre promotion to supervisory posts. Since the period spend by an incument on Leave Without Allowances is not liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for grade promotions, on rejoining duty, he is not entitled to be promoted to the grade of cadre where his immediate junior has reached in the meanwhile, though he is notionally promoted to that grade along with his junior. Notional promotion is given to the senior, as stated above, only to maintain the same sequence of ranking in the promoted post as in the lower post, for whatever it is worth and he is entitled to promotion to that grade only on acquiring the requisite qualifying service. The question, therefore, is, whether the senior can be considered as a person who has reached the appropriate grade merely on account of the notional promotion secured by him so as to claim cadre promotion in preference to his junior. In this context, the view taken by the Division Bench in Abdul Razak (supra), assumes relevance. The question, therefore, is, whether the senior can be considered as a person who has reached the appropriate grade merely on account of the notional promotion secured by him so as to claim cadre promotion in preference to his junior. In this context, the view taken by the Division Bench in Abdul Razak (supra), assumes relevance. In the said case, the issue that arose for consideration was whether a Government servant who rejoins duty after availing Leave Without Allowances for taking up employment abroad is entitled to the benefit of grade promotion which his immediate junior has acquired in the meanwhile on the strength of the seniority protected in terms of Rule 4 of Appendix XIIA of Part I KSR. The Division Bench had answered the said issue in the negative holding that a person may retain his position of seniority for whatever it is worth and the same does not automatically lead to a presumption that he is to be deemed as having rendered service all through out. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment read thus:- '6. That a person may retain his position of seniority for whatever it is worth does not automatically lead to a presumption that he is to be deemed as having rendered service all throughout. Conferment of grade promotion is for ensuring that stagnation is avoided and disgruntlement does not result. After rendering service for a specified period in a post, an officer is deemed to have come over to the higher grade. The absence of a higher post itself is immaterial for giving such benefit. In respect of persons, who are able to secure promotion, benefit of grade promotions is not admissible. Thus the benefit is introduced with clear insight. 7. R.88 as also R.110(b) of Part 1 K.S.R. prescribe that Leave Without Allowances could be availed of when no other leave is admissible to the officer. Also when the officer applies for the grant of Leave Without Allowances, it may be available. Naturally, it has to be presumed that the officer is aware of the possibility of set backs in his service, as he is voluntarily keeping away from service. There is no case for the appellant that he had been deputed to any public sector enterprise. He had voluntarily availed of leave for employment abroad. Naturally, it has to be presumed that the officer is aware of the possibility of set backs in his service, as he is voluntarily keeping away from service. There is no case for the appellant that he had been deputed to any public sector enterprise. He had voluntarily availed of leave for employment abroad. It will not therefore be justifiable on his part to contend that notwithstanding all these he will be entitled, to grade promotion, as if a bonanza for having joined Government service. He was never in public employment during such period and had nor suffered stagnation, as is normally understood. The wordings of Rule 4 of Appendix XII-A are sufficiently clear to show that the benefit might not have been admissible to such an officer. These, we find, are sufficient reasons to reject the contentions urged.” 28. That apart, as rightly stated by Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, the provisions relating to the promotion to the post of Principal in Aided Higher Secondary Schools are governed by Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the KER. As per this provision, only a teacher with a minimum of twelve years of continuous teaching experience at the Higher Secondary level would obtain the entitlement to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School. 29. That being so noticed, it must be borne in mind that the Special Rules for Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education State Service, 2004 have not been made applicable to the Aided Sector yet, and hence, the provisions of Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the KER certainly provide an insight into the manner in which the Administrative Head of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools will have to be chosen, though it is not applicable to it strictly. 30. In the case at hand, even though Smt.Priyadarsini was appointed as a Vocational Teacher on 01.12.1995, in less than nine years she applied for LWA on 09.08.2004 and continued to be on such status until 08.03.2018. Therefore, for the period from 1995 to the present, Smt.Priyadarsini was on LWA for over thirteen and half years; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu were on continuous service from the date of their initial appointments. 31. Therefore, for the period from 1995 to the present, Smt.Priyadarsini was on LWA for over thirteen and half years; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu were on continuous service from the date of their initial appointments. 31. Therefore, if Smt.Priyadarsini is chosen to be the Principal of the School, it will lead to an absolutely anachronistic situation that a teacher with much less teaching experience than the others and who had gone abroad on her own volition is so appointed, merely on the basis of his/her date of initial appointment. 32. It is here that Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the KER would provide guiding light because, it mandates a particular teaching experience as the eligibility for being appointed as the Principal; while the aforementioned Government Order, with respect to the appointment of Administrative Head/Principal in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools, gives priority to seniority, which, in normal parlance, can only mean longest teaching experience among the candidates. The importance of having sufficient teaching experience can never be lost sight of, since on the Head/Principal would depend the reputation, discipline and efficiency of teaching in a School/College. 33. The famous words of Justice K.K.Mathew in the Nine Judge Bench judgment in Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College Society & anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat & anr. ( 1975 (1) SCR 173 ) is so true even this day that: 'it is upon the principal and teachers of a college that the tone and temper of an educational institution depend'. 34. The unmissable importance of the post has also been spoken about by the Chief Justice M.S.Menon, who, in Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C.Kesavan & ors. ( 1964 KLT 791 ), wrote in his inimitable style: ' the post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching.' 35. Hence, the mere fact that Smt.Priyadarsini was appointed in 1995, ahead of both Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu, would be of little consequence because, she, admittedly, was on LWA and thus not discharging her duties as a teacher from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018. She, however, stakes claim to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School merely because the vacancy in the said post arose on 01.06.2020, after she joined duty on 09.03.2018. She, however, stakes claim to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School merely because the vacancy in the said post arose on 01.06.2020, after she joined duty on 09.03.2018. I cannot find favour with Smt.Priyadarsini on this issue and am of the firm opinion that the DGE has not erred in finding her to be not eligible to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School in question. 36. Once the first issue is so answered, the second issue will necessarily require to be considered in detail. 37. The contention of Sri.Hariharan Pillai, as urged by his learned counsel, Sri.Thomas Abraham, is that he was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher on 03.02.1997; while Smt.Sindhu was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) on 29.01.1996. He asserts that Smt.Sindhu became a Non Vocational Teacher (NVT) only on 05.08.1997, when she was allotted 24 hours of workload and, therefore, that she is junior to him, thus he being entitled to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School. 38. Sri.Thomas Abraham fortified his afore submissions by asserting that the seniority list prepared by the Manager for the year 2018, namely Ext.P15 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, has been validly framed taking note of all relevant facts and therefore, contended that the DGE has erred in having issued the impugned order. He, therefore, prays that W.P.(C)No.22198/2020 be allowed and his client be permitted to function as the Principal of the School without any interdiction. 39. The afore submissions of Sri.Thomas Abraham was supported by Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Manager, who also maintained that Smt.Sindhu cannot seek seniority over Sri.Hariharan Pillai, since she can be construed to have been promoted as a Non Vocational Teacher only with effect from 05.08.1997; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai had been appointed in such post on 03.02.1997. Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar added that his client was only acting in obedience to the directions and holdings of a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1423/2012, wherein, it has been affirmed that it is the date of entry in the cadre of Vocational or Non Vocational Teacher that would be relevant for the purpose of seniority and that the period spent by him/her as a Non Vocational Teacher (Junior) or Vocational Teacher (Junior) would not count for such purpose. Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, therefore, prayed that W.P.(C)No. 27668/2020 be allowed and Sri.Hariharan Pillai be permitted to continue as the Principal of the School. 40. When I evaluatingly weigh the afore submissions, there can be little doubt that if Smt.Sindhu continued as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) until 05.08.1997, then Sri.Hariharan Pillai would certainly be entitled to claim seniority over her. 41. The cardinal question is whether this is factually so. 42. It is admitted that Smt.Sindhu was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) in English on 29.01.1996, through an order issued by the Manager, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020. The Manager asserts that she continued in such capacity until 05.08.1997, when she became a Non Vocational Teacher on account of 24 hours of workload being allotted to her. 43. However, these assertions of the Manager and that of Sri.Hariharan Pillai lose its legs to stand on, when one examines the order of the Government dated 20.09.1996 -produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020 -wherein, along with various other Teachers of the School, Smt.Sindhu B was also reappointed as a Non Vocational Teacher in English with effect from 01.17.1996, on a Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200. 44. This has great relevance in this case because, Smt.Sindhu had been regularized in service as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) through Government Order dated 18.08.2002 -a copy of which is marked as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 23044/2020 -with effect from 29.01.1996, after her broken spells of service had been reckoned. 45. Further, as per Ext.P9 Government Order dated 23.08.2004, produced along with W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, it was clarified that the Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200 (pre-revised) was the one allotted to Non Vocational Teachers with effect from 08.06.1992, irrespective of the fact that their service commenced in the Junior Scale or otherwise. 46. Apodictically, therefore, when Smt.Sindhu had been allotted the Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200 and reappointed as a Non Vocational Lecturer in English, through Government Order dated 20.09.1996 (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020), it becomes incumbent upon the Manager to explain why he has construed her to be a Non Vocational Teacher only with effect from 05.08.1997. 47. I, therefore, asked Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, as to whether there are any materials or pleadings on record to substantiate his client's stand that Smt.Sindhu should be reckoned as being a Non Vocational Teacher only from 05.08.1997, but he was unable to point out any. 48. 47. I, therefore, asked Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, as to whether there are any materials or pleadings on record to substantiate his client's stand that Smt.Sindhu should be reckoned as being a Non Vocational Teacher only from 05.08.1997, but he was unable to point out any. 48. However, Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Hariharan Pillai, submitted that, as per the then extant circulars and orders, only a Teacher who had a minimum of 18 hours of workload could have been construed as a Non Vocational Teacher and that since Smt.Sindhu herself admits that she had only 12 hours of work with effect from 01.07.1996, she could not have been reckoned as a Non Vocational Teacher from that date. 49. This submission, I am afraid, cannot appeal to me at all, because, in Ext.P3, Smt.Sindhu has been appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher in English with effect from 01.07.1996 and was granted the scale applicable to such post, as sanctioned by the Government through order dated 23.08.2004 (Ext.P9 in W.P. (C)No.23044/2020). Therefore, irrespective of whether Smt.Sindhu was engaged for 18 hours or less with effect from 01.07.1996, she, certainly, is entitled to be considered as a Non Vocational Teacher with effect from that date, going by the terms of her re-appointment, as is available from the aforementioned Government Order. 50. I must also record that the argument of Sri.Hariharan Pillai and the Manager of the School that Smt.Sindhu can be treated to have become a Non Vocational Teacher when she was allotted 24 hours of duty is fought with great danger because there is nothing on record to indicate that Sri.Hariharan Pillai had such hours allotted to him, when he was initially appointed. His pleadings or that of the Manager are wholly silent on this and no material has been produced to show that only a teacher with such hours could be treated as being a Non Vocational Teacher. This is relevant because Smt.Priyadarsini has no such case and her counsel Sri.Varghese expressly admits that he does not impel such a contention. 51. Moving on, the further submissions of Sri.Thomas Abraham, based on the Special Rules applicable to Vocational Higher Secondary Education, would be of no avail because: the said Rules have not yet been made applicable to the Aided Sector even as on date, much less when Smt.Sindhu had been given reappointment as a Non Vocational Teacher in the year 1996. 51. Moving on, the further submissions of Sri.Thomas Abraham, based on the Special Rules applicable to Vocational Higher Secondary Education, would be of no avail because: the said Rules have not yet been made applicable to the Aided Sector even as on date, much less when Smt.Sindhu had been given reappointment as a Non Vocational Teacher in the year 1996. 52. Finally, coming to the merits of the 'order of the DGE' impugned by Sri.Hariharan Pillai, Smt.Priyadarsini and the Manager of the School and which is sought to be implemented by Smt.Sindhu, I notice that the DGE has considered all these aspects and found that Smt.Priyadarsini is not entitled to be considered for promotion on account of her long spell of LWA; while Smt.Sindhu has been found to be senior to Sri.Hariharan Pillai. 53. I cannot, therefore, find anything wrong with this order and am certainly obligated to grant an imprimatur to it as per law. In the afore circumstances, I allow W.P.(C)No.23044/2020 and dismiss W.P.(C)Nos.22171/2020, 22198/2020 and 27668/2020; consequentially directing the Manager to issue fresh orders appointing Smt.Sindhu as the Administrative Head/ Principal of the School in question forthwith. The Educational Authorities are further directed to ensure that the Manager appoints Smt.Sindhu in terms of this judgment and that the order of the DGE dated 28.09.2020 is implemented in its letter and spirit without any avoidable delay.