JUDGMENT : Gopinath, J. W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 has been placed before the Division Bench on account of an order of reference dated 15.3.2018 of a learned Single Judge of this Court, noticing that there is a conflict of opinion in as much as the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Lalitha v. State of Kerala; 2008(1)KLT 416 was not followed in Meenakshikutty v. State of Kerala; 2011 (1) KLT 1032 on the premise that the view taken in Lalitha (supra) was contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench in Sreeramachandran v. State of Kerala; 2002 (2) KLT 428 . The learned single Judge noticed the fact that Lalitha's case (supra) was affirmed (after Meenakshikutty (supra) was decided) by a Division Bench in W.A.No.2892/2007. The connected Writ Petition, namely, W.P.(C)No.18042/2010 was also ordered to be tagged along with W.P.(C)No.18494/2009. It is accordingly that these cases are coming up before us for adjudication. W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 is the lead case and the Exhibits referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise indicated, are referred to as they are marked therein. 2. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether a teacher who got the benefit of a Full-Time Teacher in terms of clause (vi) of G.O.(MS)No.62/73/S.Edn dated 2.5.1973 is also entitled to count the period of service when they enjoyed the benefits of a Full-Time Teacher for the purposes of seniority and length of service for promotion as Headmaster/Headmistress. 3. The writ petitioner is a Postgraduate in Sanskrit with 'Shiksha Sasthri' (B.Ed). By Ext.P5 order dated 16.11.1994, the petitioner was granted Full-Time benefits of High School Assistant following the stipulations contained in G.O.(MS)No.62/73/G.Edn dated 2.5.1973. On 31.3.2008, the then Headmaster of the School retired from service. Though the petitioner staked a claim for being appointed as the Headmistress, the Manager appointed the 6th respondent, who commenced regular service only from 5.6.1995. The District Educational Officer, as well as the Deputy Director of Education, held, at the instance of the petitioner, that the appointment of the 6th respondent was bad in law. By Ext.P11 order dated 15.6.2009, the Government, in revision, held as follows:- “The matter was examined in detail. The District Educational Officer, as well as the Deputy Director of Education, held, at the instance of the petitioner, that the appointment of the 6th respondent was bad in law. By Ext.P11 order dated 15.6.2009, the Government, in revision, held as follows:- “The matter was examined in detail. As per explanation to Rule 44A Chapter XIVA KER, Graduate service means all service of a teacher as H.S.A., T.S.A, Headmaster of an incomplete H.S. H.M of a complete UPS/middle school or H.M of a training school after acquisition of collegiate training such as B.T.L.T or B.Ed. But in the case of such teachers appointed prior to 15/10/1957, their untrained service after graduation shall also be reckoned as “Graduate Service”, provided that their appointments were not in accordance with the Madras Educational Rules. This is not pertained to a part time teacher enjoying full time benefit but to a full time H.S.A The clause (vi) of G.O.(MS) 62/73/S.Edn dated 2/5/1973 does not enable conversion of a part time post to full time. Such a provision in the Government order is intended to support a part time teacher who would be continuing for a long period in service and drawing only the emoluments of a part time teacher or in the other words, the application of clause (vi) of the G.O said above is only on the basis of the teachers and not on the basis of the post. If G.O.(MS) No.62/73/S.Edn dated 2/5/1973 enables conversion of a part time post to full time it will become contrary to the statutory provision in Rule 6D Chapter XXIII KER. The G.O. Dated 2/5/1973 has no over riding effect on rule 6D Chapter XXIII KERs. In the circumstances stated above, Government find that the services of Smt. Santhakumari w.e.f. 1/8/1994 to 14/7/05 cannot be treated as “Graduate Service” for promotion as H.M. Hence the order of DDE, Kottayam is set aside and Sri. K.R. Vijayan Nair is eligible to be promoted to H.M of the school.” The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court through W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 challenging Ext.P11 order. The connected Writ Petition namely, W.P.(C)No.18042/2010 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 challenging an order through which the Government directed that the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal shall be approved. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions would contend with reference to Ext.P13, which is a copy of G.O.(MS)No.62/73/G.Edn. The connected Writ Petition namely, W.P.(C)No.18042/2010 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 challenging an order through which the Government directed that the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal shall be approved. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions would contend with reference to Ext.P13, which is a copy of G.O.(MS)No.62/73/G.Edn. dated 2.5.1973, that once the benefit of Full Time has been extended to teachers like the petitioner, the entire service from the date of grant of Full Time benefit has also to be counted towards seniority/length of service etc., for being considered for promotion as Headmaster/Headmistress. It is contended that there is nothing in Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, which would prohibit the counting of such service. It is submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the judgment of this Court in Meenakshikutty (supra), wherein a learned single Judge, following a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sreeramachandran (supra), distinguished the judgment in Lalitha (supra) and held that the object of Ext.P13 Government Order is to treat the Teacher granted Full-Time benefits as a Full-Time Teacher for all intents and purposes including consideration of such service for appointment as Headmaster/Headmistress. 5. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent would however contend that Meenakshikutty (supra) was decided on 17.2.2011 and that on that date an appeal against the judgment in Lalitha (supra) was pending before a Division Bench of this Court as W.A.No.2892/2007. It is submitted that, on 11.4.2012, W.A.No.2892/2007 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in Lalitha (supra) was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that a reading of the judgment of the Division Bench in Sreeramachandran (supra) shows that this Court has not specifically considered or answered the question as to whether the period of service rendered by a Part-Time Teacher to whom the Full-Time benefits were extended in terms of Ext.P13 Government Order was entitled to count such service for consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster. It is also submitted that the view taken by the learned single Judge in Meenakshikutty (supra) that Ext.P13 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules is misplaced. It is also submitted that the view taken by the learned single Judge in Meenakshikutty (supra) that Ext.P13 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules is misplaced. Reference is also made to Rule 6D of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules to show that unless there is a minimum of 15 periods per week, there cannot be a Full Time post in respect of a Language Teacher. 6. We have considered the contentions raised by either side. 7. Lalitha (supra), considered the question also with reference to the Division Bench judgment in Sreeramachandran (supra). In paragraph 10 of the judgment in Lalitha (supra), the learned single Judge held as follows:- “10. After laying down in R.6 (1) of that Chapter, among other things, that if the number of periods per week for Sanskrit language is below 15, there could be one part-time post, R.12 in Chap.XXIII, K.E.R. obliges staff fixation. The statutory staff fixation order that could be issued under R.12 has to be in consonance with the other provisions of the K.E.R. and the Act. During the relevant time, the distribution of periods in terms of the curriculum policy framework then in existence was, among other things, that there has to be four periods for Sanskrit per week in each class/division. The staff fixation order of the school in question shows that during the relevant and immediate previous years, Sanskrit was taught in three standards with one division each. This means that, applying R.6(1) of Chap. XXIII, the number of periods per week being 12, that is below 15, there could be only one part-time post. In terms of R.55 of Chap. XIV A, K.E.R., the number of permanent teachers under each category in the staff list of any school or any of the schools under an educational agency, shall not exceed the aggregate number of sanctioned posts under that category. The necessary consequence of an excess hand would be retrenchment. But, while that rule may not come into play in the case of Smt. Lalitha, she could have continued only as a part-time teacher in view of R.6(1) of Chap. XXIII.” Thereafter, considering the provisions of Ext.P13 Government Order, it was held thus:- 14. The necessary consequence of an excess hand would be retrenchment. But, while that rule may not come into play in the case of Smt. Lalitha, she could have continued only as a part-time teacher in view of R.6(1) of Chap. XXIII.” Thereafter, considering the provisions of Ext.P13 Government Order, it was held thus:- 14. The first sentence of the afore-quoted provision deals with the application for a particular formula to certain categories of schools to which such formula was not applied earlier. The Government also decided that part-time teachers who have put in more than 5 years of service and have 8 periods of work shall henceforth be made full-time. The D.P.I. was to examine the utilisation of the services of those teachers who were the beneficiaries of that Government Order, for teaching regular classes and other subjects and giving them adequate work. This provision was to be effective from the academic year 1973-74. No statutory amendments were brought to K.E.R., to R.6(1) of Chap.XXIII, in particular, for the afore-quoted provision to have any overriding effect on the statutory force of R.6(1) of Chap.XXIII. This means that any benefit that a part-time teacher may get by virtue of the second sentence of cl.(vi) of G.O.(M.S.) 62/73 could only inure to that person and not to the part-time post that is held by that teacher. It would have been essentially the executive wisdom to provide aid and support to a part-time teacher who would be continuing for a long period in service while drawing only emoluments of a part-time teacher. While G.O.(M.S.)62/73 would enable such a teacher to continue to work and draw emoluments etc., in terms thereof, no right would legally accrue in favour of such incumbent to defeat any statutory right that may be available with any other teacher. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the quality of the post held by Smt.Lalitha could only be that of a part-time teacher in terms of the staff fixation order and she could be permitted to continue to be treated as a full-time hand in terms of G.O.(M.S.) 62/73, This is exactly what is stated in Ext.R5(e) in W.P.(C).11114/04. As already noticed, the staff fixation orders do not concede that the post of the junior Sanskrit teacher in the U.P. School of the petitioner is a protected post. In law, that could not be. There is no estoppel against the statute. As already noticed, the staff fixation orders do not concede that the post of the junior Sanskrit teacher in the U.P. School of the petitioner is a protected post. In law, that could not be. There is no estoppel against the statute. The statutory authorities, including the Government, could not have extended to Smt.Lalitha anything in excess of her statutory entitlements, at any rate, against the interest of Smt. Mary. 16. The view in the preceding paragraph requires advertence to the Bench decision of this Court in Sreeramachandran (supra). A clear understanding of the facts that led to that judgment would show that in the staff fixation orders which were considered in that case, in the column for name of posts, after the word 'Hindi', it was stated “protected”, within brackets. The Bench was, therefore, of the view that such an entry only means that the post Hindi teacher is protected in terms of G.O.(M.S.) 62/73. That view was also fortified by the statements in column 11 of the staff fixation order dealt with in that case, as is discernible from para 4 of that judgment. In that case, it was stated “one protected post of F.T. Hindi teacher is sanctioned to give full time benefit to Sri.Subramanya, Hindi teacher in terms of G..O. (M.S.)62/73/G.Edn. dated 2.7.73”. It was in that context that cl. (vi) of G..O.(M.S.) 62/73 was read. It was rightly-noticed by the Bench that the said G..O. does not make any reference to any protection being given to the teacher and what is provided is for conversion of an existing part-time post to a full-time post, subject to certain conditions. The addition of the word 'protection' by the A.E.O. to the staff fixation order in that case was deprecated, particularly when the Governmental view favours the teacher. On the facts and the circumstances of that case, it can be easily noticed that the decision in Sreeramachandran (supra) rests exclusively on the facts of that case and I am unable to find way to apply that as a precedent on a question of law relating to the interpretation and application of the terms of G.O.(MS)62/73, which is only an executive order and which cannot run contrary to, or, in any manner, reduce the rigour of R.6 (1) in Chap. XXIII K.E.R. 17. Smt.Lalitha, who continued as a full-time teacher on the strength of Cl. XXIII K.E.R. 17. Smt.Lalitha, who continued as a full-time teacher on the strength of Cl. (vi) of G.O.(M.S.) 62/73 had not figured against any of the posts sanctioned as per the staff fixation orders, including for the relevant year. Therefore, even if she possesses the educational qualifications required for a graduate teacher, she was not a teacher who could have been treated as a member of the staff of the school, to be within the zone of consideration for appointment as Headmistress. Therefore, even if a graduate teacher is to be preferred to an under-graduate teacher in terms of R.45, Smt.Lalitha was not entitled to get preference over Smt.Mary in terms of that rule. Not only preference, she was not entitled to be treated as a “member of the staff” of the school or the educational agency to be considered for appointment as Headmistress.” A Division Bench of this Court considering the appeal filed against the judgment in Lalitha (supra) did not in terms consider the effect of Ext.P13 Government Order and whether the provisions of Ext.P13 can run counter to the provisions in the Kerala Education Rules. However, the Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge in Lalitha (supra). 8. We have carefully considered the judgment of the Division Bench in Sreeramachandran (supra). On a reading of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned single Judge in Lalitha (supra) that Sreeramachandran (supra) did not, in any manner, consider the quality of the service rendered by a Part-Time Teacher, who obtained Full-Time benefits in terms of Ext.P13 Government Order, is correct in law. Sreeramachandran (supra) as observed by the learned single Judge in Lalitha (supra) cannot be treated as a precedent for the purposes of determining the question as to whether the service rendered by a Part-Time Teacher, who obtained Full-Time benefit by virtue of the terms contained in Ext.P13, is entitled to count such service as qualifying service for consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster. In the facts of this case, we must notice the specific stand of the 6th respondent that a Full-Time post of HSA (Sanskrit) was sanctioned in the School in question only during the academic year 2005-2006. In the facts of this case, we must notice the specific stand of the 6th respondent that a Full-Time post of HSA (Sanskrit) was sanctioned in the School in question only during the academic year 2005-2006. The Government through its counter affidavit dated 30.10.2020 in W.P(C)No.18494/2009 has also taken the specific stand that the provisions of clause (vi) of Ext.P13 Government Order is only intended to support a Part Time Teacher, who had rendered service for a long time by granting the emoluments and other benefits of Full Time Teacher and that it was never intended to be in derogation of the prescriptions under Rule 6D of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. 9. We are therefore of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge in Lalitha (supra) as affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2892/2007 lays down the correct position in law. Regarding the quality of service of Part-Time Teachers, who got Full-Time benefits in terms of Ext.P13 Government Order, we hold that Meenakshikutty (supra) does not lay down the correct law and that such service cannot count towards seniority or length of service for being considered for promotion as Headmaster/Headmistress. We also hold that Sreeramachandran (supra) is no authority for the proposition that the entire service from the date on which Full Time benefit was extended to a Part-Time Teacher is to be counted towards seniority/length of service etc., for being considered for promotion as Headmaster. We also hold that Ext.P13 Government Order (G.O.(MS)No.62/73/S.Edn. dated 2.5.1973) is not issued in the exercise of power in terms of Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules or in derogation or overriding any statutory provision. We, therefore, hold that Ext.P13 cannot run counter to express statutory provisions and therefore, the Teachers, who got Full Time benefit by virtue of clause (vi) of Ext.p13 Government Order, are not entitled to count the service rendered as a Part-Time Teacher with Full-Time benefits towards seniority or as qualifying service for being considered for promotion as headmaster/headmistress. We answer the reference accordingly. 10. In the light of our findings, as above, nothing survives to be adjudicated in these writ petitions and accordingly we dismiss the writ petitions finding that Ext.P11 order of the Government in W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 and Ext.P13 order of the Government in W.P.(C)No.18042/2010 calls for no interference.