ORDER : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. I have gone through the well articulated judgment authored by my learned brother Sri.Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. on behalf of himself and learned brother Sri.C.P. Mohammed Nias, J. While I agree with that part of the judgment that encapsulates the sequence of events leading to the amendment of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules [hereinafter referred to as the “KER” for brevity], I find myself unable to accept the answer it provides to the question referred to us for our opinion and the reasoning leading to it. 2. As per the scheme of Chapter XIV-A of the KER, the appointment of teachers to private aided schools can be only of candidates possessing prescribed qualifications. An exception was carved out in earlier years for appointment of unqualified teachers on temporary basis, probably on account of the then perceived dearth of qualified candidates, and in such cases the unqualified candidate was given a preferential right to permanent appointment to the post, as and when he/she acquired the necessary qualification. In later years, however, through an amendment brought about in Rule I of Chapter XIV-A with effect from 18.7.1972 (G.O.(P) 94/72/G.Edn. Dated 4.7.1972), the provision for appointment of unqualified candidates was dispensed with. While the provision was in force, the nature of the right held by an unqualified appointee for preferential appointment to future vacancies in the post, and the object of the provision that conferred the said right was clarified by this Court in Poulose K.V. v. Assistant Educational Officer - [1967 KHC 316] in paragraph 4, which reads as follows: “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R.5, among many other provisions of the rules, was made for the protection of unqualified teachers from exploitation by the managers of aided schools. It is a notorious fact that the managers of the aided schools traffic in the appointment of teachers. They try to create as many vacancies as possible by making temporary and short-term appointments, and receive large amounts of money from the candidates for making the appointment. For this purpose they always look for a new victim. The purpose of Rule 5 is obviously to remedy this evil, as far as possible. It gives a right for preferential appointment to a person, who was once an unqualified teacher and who subsequently acquired the prescribed qualifications. For this purpose they always look for a new victim. The purpose of Rule 5 is obviously to remedy this evil, as far as possible. It gives a right for preferential appointment to a person, who was once an unqualified teacher and who subsequently acquired the prescribed qualifications. In other words, if a person has once secured an appointment in an aided school, he could subsequently claim it as a matter of right, provided there is a vacancy and he has acquired the prescribed qualifications. The manager is thus prevented from having a second opportunity from making' an illegal profit; in respect of such a vacancy, either from the teacher or from a fresh, candidate.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3. Although the decision in Poulose (supra) was disapproved by a later Division Bench in Rev. Fr. Xavier v. State of Kerala - [1971 KHC 208], on another point, the above observations with regard to the object sought to be achieved through the provision still hold good. As already noted, post 1972, the practice of appointing unqualified candidates was discontinued and, in the meanwhile, by G.O.(P) 287/66/Edn. dtd. 20.6.1966, Rule 51A was introduced into Chapter XIV-A to confer a preferential right of appointment to future vacancies in the respective posts in the School to qualified teachers who had to be relieved from the post on account of the circumstances envisaged in Rule 49 (having less than 8 months service in a temporary vacancy), Rule 52 (reduction in number of posts) or on account of termination of vacancies. The Rule, as it stood prior to its amendment in 2005, read as follows: "51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. Note 1. - If there are more than one claimant under this rule the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointments is the same then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. Note 1. - If there are more than one claimant under this rule the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointments is the same then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under sub-rule (4) of R.1 as far as High Schools are concerned. Note 2. - Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgment due and give a period of 14 (fourteen) clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited." 4. Clarifying the object and purpose of the Rule, the Division Bench in Anil Kumar v. Beena – [2000 KHC 58] held as follows: “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10. The object and purpose of the rule is to restore to those qualified persons relieved of the appointment, the post they lost for want of vacancies. Rule was enacted to restore to him the same type of post which he would have occupied but for the termination of vacancy. Qualification obtained by a teacher to teach a particular subject and the consequent experience gathered by him by holding the post and the approval obtained from the department would give rise to those persons a preference for holding identical posts in the school on a further occasion. A teacher who obtained such a preference for appointment under R.51A cannot go on acquiring various other qualifications subsequent to his relief from the school and stake claim for a post which he never held in the school on previous occasions. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, that would lead to an anomalous situation and would defeat the claims of various qualified persons relieved from other posts. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, that would lead to an anomalous situation and would defeat the claims of various qualified persons relieved from other posts. Note 1 to R.51A amply makes it clear that if there are more than one qualified persons preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. Rule never emphasises that preference will be given to those persons who have acquired subsequent qualification.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Rule 51A was amended through G.O.(P) No.187/2005/G.Edn. dtd. 17.6.2005. The Explanatory note to the notification that indicates the general purport of the amendment reads as follows: “There is no express provision in the Kerala Education Rules for reverting a teacher promoted under rule 43 of Chapter XIV (A) to a lower post for want of vacancy. According to the decisions of the High Court of Kerala, rule 43 of Chapter XIV (A) overrides rule 51A thereof. As a result, if a teacher who has been promoted under rule 43 is thrownout for want of vacancy, he will be treated only as a rule 51A claimant and has to wait till a vacancy in the category occurs again. The High Court has also held in certain decisions that in order to attract rule 51A there must be identity in regard to the nature of the post claimed and previously held by the teacher. The above decisions would cause hardships to senior teachers who were promoted in short vacancies in higher posts. Government consider that a teacher thrownout from service and a protected teacher should be entitled to be appointed against vacancies arising in future, in the same or higher or lower category of teaching post under the Educational Agency, provided the teacher is fully qualified to be appointed to the post.” The amended Rule 51A reads as follows: "51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise in schools under the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. Provided that a teacher who was relieved under R.49 or R.52 shall not be entitled to preference for appointment under this rule unless such teacher has a minimum continuous service of one academic year as on the date of relief. Provided further that the first preference under this rule shall be given to protected teachers. Note 1. - If there are more than one claimant under this rule the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointments is the same then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under sub-rule (4) of R.1 as far as High Schools are concerned. Note 1A: Fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing reappointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Explanation: For the purpose of this clause,"Protected teacher" means a teacher who has been retrenched for want of vacancy after putting such length of regular service that may be specified by the Government or who is eligible for such Protection as per G.O.(Ms)No.104/69/Edn. Dated 6-3-1969 or G.O.(Ms) No.231/84/G.Edn. Dated 27.10.1984 or any other orders issued by Government from time to time. Note 2. Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgment due and give a period of 14 (fourteen) clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited. " The effect of the amendment and the changes brought about by it were considered by a learned Single Judge in Soumya V. v. State of Kerala and Others - (2013) KHC 461] as follows: “21. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited. " The effect of the amendment and the changes brought about by it were considered by a learned Single Judge in Soumya V. v. State of Kerala and Others - (2013) KHC 461] as follows: “21. After the amendment was brought into effect in the year 2005, the scope of re-appointment originally provided to the future vacancies 'in a post' came to be thrown open to 'a category of posts', which may be in the Same, Higher or Lower levels. The words 'category of posts' have to be considered and given a liberal interpretation with regard to the similar nature of posts as arrayed in different categories as to the classification of posts referring to the staff strength mentioned in Chapter XXIII - Rule-3. The only requirement is that the concerned teacher has to be duly qualified to hold the post. As mentioned herein before, it has been held by this Court in crystal clear terms, on many an occasion, that the relevant date is 'date of occurrence of vacancy' and one has to be qualified as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. If the contention of the petitioner, that the Rule 51A claimant has to be qualified as on the date of raising of the claim, is to be accepted, that will again lead to the concept of 'identity of posts', which was decided to be done away with, by virtue of the conscious decision taken by the Law makers. 22. If the contention of the petitioner, that the Rule 51A claimant has to be qualified as on the date of raising of the claim, is to be accepted, that will again lead to the concept of 'identity of posts', which was decided to be done away with, by virtue of the conscious decision taken by the Law makers. 22. It is also relevant to note that the Law makers have also consciously used the terms/expressions with reference to the 'present tense': "Qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise in schools under the same educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency .” It is with this intent, enabling the concerned claimants to contest for different posts at different levels and thus to reduce the number of Rule 51A claimants, that 'Note 1A' also came to be incorporated as per the Government Order dated 17.06.2005, published in the Gazette dated 25.06.2005, stipulating that fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the Same or Higher or Lower level category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made, only after providing reappointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Therefore, the purpose is very evident and it has to be seen, whether any qualified hand, is available to be accommodated in a vacancy in the concerned category of posts in the three different levels ( Same or Higher or Lower levels as on the date of arising of the vacancy) and only if no Rule 51A claimant is available, as above, that it will be open for the Educational Agency to go for fresh recruitment.” 6. The above view of the learned Single Judge was not, however, accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Kalavathy C. v. State of Kerala and Others - [ 2014 3 KHC 253 ], which, after referring to the amended rule held as follows: “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9. The above view of the learned Single Judge was not, however, accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Kalavathy C. v. State of Kerala and Others - [ 2014 3 KHC 253 ], which, after referring to the amended rule held as follows: “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9. Reading of the above shows that as in the case of rule as it originally stood, it provides that qualified teachers, who are relieved from service, in the circumstances enumerated therein, shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies. However, in addition to what was already provided, Rule also extends that preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same, higher or lower category of teaching posts. This extended benefit is available to the teacher only subject to the further condition that the teacher should be qualified to the teaching posts in which the vacancies that may arise in future and there is no claimant under Rule 43 in the lower category. 10. One cannot have a quarrel that the Rule in question extends the benefit of concession to teachers who are thrown out of employment. The legal position is trite that rules or orders providing concessions should be construed strictly. If the rule is so construed, from the opening part of the rule itself, it is evident that the benefit of the rule is applicable only to qualified teachers who are relieved in the circumstances mentioned in the Rule. Such a qualified teacher who is relieved from service can claim preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts to which he is qualified. Therefore, for a teacher to claim preference as provided under Rule 51A as amended, the teacher should be qualified at the time of relief and there is nothing in the rule suggesting that a Rule 51A claim can be sustained on the strength of qualifications acquired subsequent to relief from service. If it is otherwise, the words 'qualified teachers who are relieved' mentioned in the rule will be otiose. It is such a teacher who is eligible to claim the preferential rights that are provided in the Rule. 11. Further, the extended benefit to such a teacher is to claim preference for re-appointment to the same, lower or higher category of teaching posts. It is such a teacher who is eligible to claim the preferential rights that are provided in the Rule. 11. Further, the extended benefit to such a teacher is to claim preference for re-appointment to the same, lower or higher category of teaching posts. The words lower and higher occurring in the rule should be understood in the context of the word 'same'. This therefore means that the lower and the higher posts should be in the same discipline in which the teacher has rendered service as a qualified teacher. In other words, one cannot work in one discipline and claim the benefit of preference under Rule 51A to a post in a different discipline, be it to a lower or higher post.” 7. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal affirmed the decision of the Government impugned in the writ petition, which had taken a similar view. Interestingly, we note that the appeals before us stem from a Government order dated 23.9.2014, passed almost two months after the date of the judgment of the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra) (7.7.2014), taking a view contrary to the one taken in the earlier Government Order that was upheld by the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra). The learned Single Judge took note of the decision in Kalavathy (supra) and allowed two of the writ petitions that impugned the Government order dated 23.9.2014 by setting aside the same. The third writ petition seeking approval to the appointment of the rival candidate was dismissed. What is surprising however is that the Government too preferred three appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge contending that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, following Kalavathy (supra) is wrong. It is significant that the Government had not challenged the decision of the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra) in any further proceedings. It was therefore wholly improper for the Government to have preferred appeals in a matter that had been decided by a Division Bench of this Court by upholding the Government's own earlier decision that interpreted the amended Rule 51A in the same manner. At any rate, the Division Bench before which these appeals came up for consideration doubted the correctness of the view taken in Kalavathy (supra) and deemed it appropriate to refer these appeals for consideration by a larger Bench. 8. At any rate, the Division Bench before which these appeals came up for consideration doubted the correctness of the view taken in Kalavathy (supra) and deemed it appropriate to refer these appeals for consideration by a larger Bench. 8. When I consider the views taken by the Single Judge of this Court in Sowmya (supra) and that taken by the Division Bench of this court in Kalavathy (supra), I find that while the views taken in both the aforesaid cases can certainly be seen as possible views on a literal reading of the provisions of Rule 51A, divorced of its object and purport, it is the view of the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra) that has to be preferred when one considers the provision in the backdrop of its stated object and legislative history. 9. The object of Rule 51A, as rightly pointed out in Anil Kumar (supra), is to restore to those qualified persons relieved of their appointment, the post they lost for want of vacancies. While under the unamended Rule 51A, the restoration was through preferential appointment to a future vacancy in the same category of post as was held by the person at the time of relief, the amended Rule 51A contemplates a preferential appointment to future vacancies in higher or lower posts also for which the relieved person is qualified. 10. While it is no doubt well settled in service law that the relevant date for holding qualifications for appointment to a post is the date of arising of the vacancy or the date of filling up the post as the case may be, we are in these appeals concerned not with a right for consideration for appointment to a post but with a statutory provision that confers a right to preferential appointment to some persons, from among all qualified persons who can aspire for appointment, based on the criteria of past service rendered under the Educational Agency concerned. A right to preferential appointment based on past service, that is conferred with the avowed object of restoring posts to those who lost them for want of vacancies, must necessarily look to the status of the person at the time he/she was relieved from the post because the content, scope and extent of the right obtained by a person must be determined as on the date he/she acquires the right and not beyond that date. The person's future entitlements, based on the right accrued, must also be ascertainable on that date. 11. In Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Others - [ AIR 1957 SC 540 ] a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while holding that the institution of a suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit, laid down the following principles as regards vesting of rights and effectuation thereof: “23. From the decisions cited above the following principles clearly emerge: (i) That the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding. (ii) The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. (iii) The institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit. (iv) The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior Court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal. (v) This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise.” The said principles were applied by the Supreme Court in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Others - [ (2016) 4 SCC 216 ] while considering the issue as to whether the right accrued to a teacher in terms of the unamended Rule 51A of the KER would entitle her to claim preferential appointment to a vacancy that arose subsequent to the date of amendment of Rule 51A whereby the preconditions for acquiring a right to preferential appointment were materially altered. The amendment in question had the effect of prescribing a full academic years' service prior to retrenchment as a precondition for getting the right to preferential appointment to future vacancies. The Court relied on the principle that vested rights can be taken away by a subsequent enactment to hold that notwithstanding the teacher had acquired a right to preferential appointment based on the provisions obtaining under the unamended Rule, since the Rule had been amended before the vacancy arose, the right that vested in terms of the unamended Rule had to be seen as taken away by the subsequent amendment. In other words while the right vested prior to the amendment, its effectuation was not possible only because the right was taken away by a legislative measure. 12. In the instant appeals, there was no amendment that took away any vested right of the teacher concerned. The question then arises as to what is the content of that right ? In Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Others - [ (2016) 4 SCC 216 ] the Court found that the preferential right under Rule 51A has two components viz. (a) prescribed qualifications and service criteria and (b) availability of appropriate vacancy. In that case, however, the Rule was amended by prescribing a different service criteria during the period between (a) and (b) above, and under those circumstances, the teacher was held to have lost the first component of the right. In the instant appeals, no component of the right is lost. What is contended however, is that at any point in time between (a) and (b) above, the teacher can enlarge the scope of the right by acquiring new qualifications. 13. In my view, the said contention cannot be accepted. Subsequent acquisition of new qualifications cannot enlarge the scope of a right already accrued because, as laid down in Garikapati Veeraya (supra), the series of proceedings between the accrual of a right and its effectuation must be connected by an intrinsic unity and has to be treated as one proceeding. That unity will not manifest if the qualifications at the time when the right accrues viz. at the time of retrenchment, is different from the qualifications at the time of effectuation of the right viz. when the vacancy arises. 14. That unity will not manifest if the qualifications at the time when the right accrues viz. at the time of retrenchment, is different from the qualifications at the time of effectuation of the right viz. when the vacancy arises. 14. The position can be illustrated using the analogy of a key card and the locks that it opens. At the time of retrenchment, based on the qualification possessed by the teacher she may get a key card that unlocks future vacancies to posts for which she is qualified. It is the qualifications she has at the time of retrenchment that are embedded in the key card that she gets. When the vacancies arise in the future she can unlock only those vacancies as will open with the key card that she has. The said key card will not open the locks to those vacancies which require different qualifications than those embedded in the key card. 15. It is also significant that Rule 51A uses the word 'qualified' in two places and since the word is used twice in the same provision, it must necessarily carry the same meaning at both the places where it occurs (See: Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors – [ 2002 (1) SCC 367 ]. For that to happen in the instant case, one has to read the word 'qualified', wherever occurring in the provision, as referring to such qualifications held by the person concerned as would enable him/her to aspire for an accommodation to a lower or higher post as well. In other words, the word “qualified” has to be seen as referring to the qualifications necessary for effectuating the right obtained at the time of relief. Accordingly, unless the person concerned holds all the qualifications necessary for holding the higher or lower posts, at the time of relief from the existing post for want of vacancy, he/she cannot acquire a preferential right of appointment to future vacancies in such posts. Further, permitting a person to enlarge the scope of his/her right through a subsequent acquisition of qualifications appropriate for a higher/lower category of posts would also militate against the concept of 'restoration', which is the object of the provision, and which must necessarily refer to something that a person 'had' or 'possessed' before being deprived of it at the time of relief. 16. 16. There are other cues in Rule 51A that point to the same inference. Note 1A that was inserted in the same year of amendment [25.6.2005] states that fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teachers posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing re-appointment to such teachers thrown out from service. The reference to 'such' teachers must be taken as a reference to teachers who were qualified for the higher or lower category of teaching posts, but have been thrown out from service and are now looking for re-appointment. Further, the use of the present tense in the words 'for which he is qualified' must be taken as a reference to the qualifications possessed by the person concerned at the time when the right to preferential appointment is obtained viz. at the time of his/her relief from the previous spell of appointment. 17. I might also refer to Note 2 that deals with the managers obligation/duty to issue an order of appointment to a teacher holding a right under Rule 51A. While examining the compliance by the manager of his duty under the statutory rules, he can be presumed to be aware of only such qualifications as were possessed by the teacher concerned at the time of relief and not the subsequently obtained qualifications of the teacher which he has no way of ascertaining. This aspect assumes significance when we find that the requirement under the Note has been held to be a mandatory one by the decisions of this Court in Shobhana v. Manager, Cholapurath A UP School - [ 1997 (2) KLJ 700 ] and Vinayaraj K. v. State of Kerala - [ 2014 (1) KHC 205 (DB)]. The duty/obligation conferred on the Manager being a jural co-relation of the right held by the teacher, its scope must correspond to the scope/extent of the corresponding right that is sought to be protected. 18. In Soumya (supra) the learned Single Judge was probably guided by the general principles governing appointment to a post which state that qualifications need be possessed only at the time of appointment or on the date of occurrence of the vacancy as the case may be. 18. In Soumya (supra) the learned Single Judge was probably guided by the general principles governing appointment to a post which state that qualifications need be possessed only at the time of appointment or on the date of occurrence of the vacancy as the case may be. Rule 51A however does not deal with a right to appointment simpliciter but with a 'preferential right' to appointment which, being an exceptional right, must be construed strictly and its benefits confined to only the deserving few who were deprived of their employment opportunity on account of fortuitous circumstances. That protection, I feel, can only be with regard to such future employment opportunities as are ascertainable at the time of retrenchment, based on the qualifications held on that date. To hold otherwise would be to mete out injustice to another equally qualified candidate aspiring for the post, for the sole reason that the rival candidate was retrenched from service earlier, from a post other than the one for which she now raises her claim, based on qualifications acquired after she acquired her preferential claim. To provide an illustration:- An LPSA who has merely a TTC qualification at the time of retrenchment, may obtain the higher qualification of B.Ed necessary for the post of UPSA, thereafter, and may be equally qualified as any other applicant for the same post in a School. While she can be seen as having an equal chance as any other applicant for appointment to the post of UPSA, giving her the benefit of a preferential appointment based on a qualification she did not possess when she was retrenched and obtained the right would tantamount to conferring an undue advantage on her and meting out injustice to another job aspirant. I do not think that was the intention of the rule maker while amending Rule 51A. 19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and findings, I am of the view that the views expressed by the Division Bench of this court in Kalavathy (supra) is to be preferred for construing the true scope and ambit of the rights conferred by Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A KER. 19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and findings, I am of the view that the views expressed by the Division Bench of this court in Kalavathy (supra) is to be preferred for construing the true scope and ambit of the rights conferred by Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A KER. A teacher who is relieved from service, under the circumstances outlined in the said provision, and who thereby obtains a preferential right to future appointment in either the same category or higher or lower category of posts for which he/she is qualified, must possess the applicable qualifications at the time when the right under Rule 51A accrues to him/her viz. at the time of his/her previous retrenchment from service. I would answer the reference accordingly. Raja Vijayaraghavan V. & Mohammed Nias, JJ. These appeals are before us pursuant to a reference order dated 27.01.2021 of a Division Bench of this Court. The question before the Division Bench was whether a person claiming the benefit of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “KER” for brevity) should have had the necessary qualification for the post in which she/he claims even on the date on which she/he was retrenched from the post in which she/he was working. 2. Rule 51A of the KER was amended in the year 2005 by the Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules. Prior to the amendment, Rule 51A as it stood then, read as follows: "51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same educational agency, provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. Note 1: If there are more than one claimant under this rule the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointment is the same, then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under sub-r.(4) of R.1 as far as High Schools are concerned. If the date of first appointment is the same, then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under sub-r.(4) of R.1 as far as High Schools are concerned. Note 2: Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgement due and give a period of 14 (fourteen) clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time, the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited. 3. Rule 51A of the KER was interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Anilkumar v. Beena, [ 2000 (1) KLT 286 ], which relying on the earlier judgment in Saramma v. DEO, Kothamangalam, [1991 KHC 528] took the following view in paragraph No. 10 of the judgment. 10. The object and purpose of the rule is to restore to those qualified persons relieved of the appointment, the post they lost for want of vacancies. Rule was enacted to restore to him the same type of post which he would have occupied but for the termination of vacancy. Qualification obtained by a teacher to teach a particular subject and the consequent experience gathered by him by holding the post and the approval obtained from the department would give rise to those persons a preference for holding identical posts in the school on a future occasion. A teacher who obtained such a preference for appointment under R.51A cannot go on acquiring various other qualifications subsequent to his relief from the school and stake claim for a post which he never held in the school on previous occasions. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, that would lead to an anomalous situation and would defeat the claims of various qualified persons relieved from other posts. Note 1 to R.51A amply makes it clear that if there are more than one qualified persons preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, that would lead to an anomalous situation and would defeat the claims of various qualified persons relieved from other posts. Note 1 to R.51A amply makes it clear that if there are more than one qualified persons preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. Rule never emphasises that preference will be given to those persons who have acquired subsequent qualification. 4. This Court in Anilkumar (supra) had held that if a person is once appointed in a particular vacancy for a particular post and his service gets terminated on account of want of vacancy or for other similar causes, the Rule enables him to lay a preferential claim for appointment when a vacancy in respect of a similar post arises on a future occasion. In other words, the preferential right conferred by Rule 51A of the KER stands restricted to the nature of the post held earlier by the person concerned. The same view was taken by an earlier Division Bench in Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala, [ 1988 (2) KLT 359 ] wherein it was held that there must be identity in respect to the nature of the post. 5. It appears that the Government felt that a teacher thrown out from service and a protected teacher should be entitled to be appointed against vacancies arising in future, in the same or higher or lower category of teaching post under the Educational Agency, provided the teacher is fully qualified to be appointed to the post. 6. With the above object in mind, Rule 51A of the KER was amended and the amended Rule to the extent it is relevant, reads thus: “51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise if there is no claimant under R.43 in the lower category in schools under the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. Provided that a teacher who was relieved under Rule 49 or Rule 52 shall not be entitled to preference for appointment under this rule unless such teacher has a minimum continuous service of one academic year as on the date of relief: Provided further that the first preference under this rule shall be given to protected teachers belonging to the same Educational Agency. Provided further that preference shall be given to teachers from Teachers Bank for appointment in vacancies as specified in Rule 7 of Chapter XXI Note I. If there are more than one claimant under this rule the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointments is the same then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 as far as High schools are concerned Note 1A:- Fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing re-appointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause, "Protected teacher" means, a teacher who has been retrenched for want of vacancy after putting such length of regular service that may be specified by the Government or who is eligible for such Protection as per G.O. (Ms) No. 104/69/Edn. dated 6-3-1969 or G.O. (Ms) No. 231/84/G.Edn. dated 27-10-1984 or any other orders issued by Government from time to time. Note 2. Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgement due and give a period of 14 (fourteen) clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited. 7. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited. 7. While amending the Rule by SRO No.638/2005, an explanatory note was also inserted to clarify the object that was sought to be achieved by the amendment. The explanatory note is extracted below for reference; Explanatory Note: There is no express provision in the Kerala Education Rules for reverting a teacher promoted under R.43 of Chap.14A to a lower post for want of vacancy. According to the decisions of the High Court of Kerala, R.43 of Chap.14A overrides R.51A thereof. As a result, if a teacher who has been promoted under R.43 is thrown out for want of vacancy, he will be treated only as a R.51A claimant and has to wait till a vacancy in the category occurs again. The High Court has also held in certain decisions that in order to attract R.51A there must be identity in regard to the nature of the post claimed and previously held by the teacher. The above decisions would cause hardships to senior teachers who were promoted in short vacancies in higher posts. Government consider that a teacher thrown out from service and a protected teacher should be entitled to be appointed against vacancies arising in future, in the same or higher or lower category of teaching post under the Educational Agency, provided the teacher is fully qualified to be appointed to the post. 8. A reading of the explanatory note reveals that the Government noticed that there is no provision in the Kerala Education Rules for reverting a teacher promoted under Rule 43 to a lower post for want of vacancy. It was also noticed that this Court has held that Rule 43 would override Rule 51A (See Mary v. Regional Deputy Director of Public instruction, [ILR (1974) 2 ker. 274]). In view of the above, if a teacher who has been promoted under Rule 43 is thrown out for want of vacancy, she/he can only be treated as a Rule 51A claimant and she/he has to wait till a vacancy in the category occurs again. After noticing the law laid down by this Court in Anilkumar (supra), the Government recognized that as per the extant rules, there must be identity with regard to the nature of the post claimed and previously held by the teacher. After noticing the law laid down by this Court in Anilkumar (supra), the Government recognized that as per the extant rules, there must be identity with regard to the nature of the post claimed and previously held by the teacher. The Government felt that the law laid down by those judgments would cause hardships to senior teachers who were promoted in short vacancies in higher posts. The Government, therefore, felt that an amendment had to be brought in to ensure that a teacher thrown out from service and a protected teacher should be entitled to be appointed against vacancies in future, in the same or higher or lower category of teaching post under the educational agency, provided the teacher is fully qualified to be appointed to the post. 9. The question whether, in view of the amendment brought to Rule 51A, the identity of post was to be established and whether it could only be in respect of the subsequent vacancy in the particular post as held by this Court in Anilkumar (supra) came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Soumya V. v. State of Kerala and Ors., [ 2013 (1) KLT 416 ]. After noticing the relevant provisions as well as the law laid down by this Court and after interpreting the provisions prior to the amendment, P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. (as His Lordship then was) held as under: 18. The change brought about in the Kerala Educational (Amendment) Rules, 2005 after the amendment in the year 2005, is in the following lines: "In R.51A: (i) after the words "to future vacancies", the following words shall be inserted, namely: - "in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified, that may arise" (ii) after Note I, the following Note and Explanation shall be inserted, namely: "Note 1A. - Fresh appointment to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing re - appointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Explanation. - Fresh appointment to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing re - appointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Explanation. - For the purpose of this clause, "Protected teacher" means a teacher who has been retrenched for want of vacancy after putting such length of regular service that may be specified by the Government or who is eligible for such Protection as per GO (Ms) No. 104/69/Edn. dated 06/03/1969 or GO (Ms.) No. 231/84/G.Edn dated 27/10/1984 or any other orders issued by Government from time to time." 19. It is to be noted that there is a conscious change in the usage of words, when, after the words "to future vacancies", the words "in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise" were inserted. To put it more clearly, when reference was made in the earlier Rules to 'future vacancies' alone, there is a conscious change in the amended Rules by referring to the different category of teaching posts as the Same, Higher or Lower level. It has to be borne in mind, that there may be several vacancies in the same post (due to retirement, dismissal, promotion, transfer etc.). Under the earlier Rules, since nothing else was mentioned except the reference to 'future vacancies', it had necessarily to be confined/restricted to the 'particular post' he/she was holding before coming out from service. The vacancy naturally differs from post to post and as such, a R.51A claimant in respect of UPSA (Hindi) could aspire to a vacancy in the post of UPSA (Hindi) and nothing else. But after the amendment, the Government thought it fit to cut open a wider spectrum of posts for considering the R.51A claimants, by a conscious usage of the terms 'category of teaching posts at the same, higher or lower level'. There is an ocean of difference between the 'future vacancy' in a post, as it existed under the old rules and the 'future vacancy', that may arise in the category of teaching posts at the Same or Higher or Lower level, as envisaged after the amendment. There is an ocean of difference between the 'future vacancy' in a post, as it existed under the old rules and the 'future vacancy', that may arise in the category of teaching posts at the Same or Higher or Lower level, as envisaged after the amendment. The category of teaching posts takes in several types of posts as grouped together like LPSAs (of different faculties) UPSAs (of different faculties), HSAs (of different faculties), Language Teachers (of different languages) and so on. 20. The purpose of amendment is discernible also from the 'Note 1A' added to R.51A, holding that fresh appointment to the vacancies arising in the Same, Higher or Lower level of category of teaching posts under the educational agency shall be made, only after providing reappointment to such teachers thrown out from the service and protected teachers available under the educational agency. The 'Explanatory Note' to the SRO 638/2005 dated 17/06/2005 bringing about the amendment also throws some light in this regard, though it does not form part of the Notification. By virtue of the law declared by this Court in respect of the 'identity of posts', a R.51A claimant has to wait till a vacancy occurs in the same post previously held by the teacher. This virtually caused hardships to teachers who were promoted in short term vacancies, in higher posts. It was considering the same, that the Government thought it fit to accommodate the teachers thrown out from the service and protected teachers, as entitled for appointment, against the vacancies arising in future, in the Same, Higher or Lower level of teaching posts under the concerned educational agency, provided the Teacher/s is/are fully qualified to be appointed to the post. Thus after the amendment, the necessity to have identity with the post previously held by the teacher has virtually disappeared. The intention of the Rule Making Authority is obviously to extend the benefit to the teachers already thrown out, as above, thus with a clear object to bring down the number of persons standing in the queue as R.51A claimants. The only stipulation is, as to the possession of the necessary qualification. 21. The intention of the Rule Making Authority is obviously to extend the benefit to the teachers already thrown out, as above, thus with a clear object to bring down the number of persons standing in the queue as R.51A claimants. The only stipulation is, as to the possession of the necessary qualification. 21. After the amendment was brought into effect in the year 2005, the scope of re - appointment originally provided to the future vacancies 'in a post' came to be thrown open to 'a category of posts', which may be in the Same, Higher or Lower levels. The words 'category of posts' have to be considered and given a liberal interpretation with regard to the similar nature of posts as arrayed in different categories as to the classification of posts referring to the staff strength mentioned in Chapter XXIII - R.3. The only requirement is that the concerned teacher has to be duly qualified to hold the post. As mentioned herein before, it has been held by this Court in crystal clear terms, on many an occasion, that the relevant date is 'date of occurrence of vacancy' and one has to be qualified as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. If the contention of the petitioner, that the R.51A claimant has to be qualified as on the date of raising of the claim, is to be accepted, that will again lead to the concept of 'identity of posts', which was decided to be done away with, by virtue of the conscious decision taken by the Law makers. 22. If the contention of the petitioner, that the R.51A claimant has to be qualified as on the date of raising of the claim, is to be accepted, that will again lead to the concept of 'identity of posts', which was decided to be done away with, by virtue of the conscious decision taken by the Law makers. 22. It is also relevant to note that the Law makers have also consciously used the terms/expressions with reference to the 'present tense': "Qualified teachers who are relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise in schools under the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency." It is with this intent, enabling the concerned claimants to contest for different posts at different levels and thus to reduce the number of R.51A claimants, that 'Note 1A' also came to be incorporated as per the Government Order dated 17/06/2005, published in the Gazette dated 25/06/2005, stipulating that fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the Same or Higher or Lower level category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made, only after providing reappointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Therefore, the purpose is very evident and it has to be seen, whether any qualified hand, is available to be accommodated in a vacancy in the concerned category of posts in the three different levels (Same or Higher or Lower levels as on the date of arising of the vacancy) and only if no R.51A claimant is available, as above, that it will be open for the Educational Agency to go for fresh recruitment. 10. Though the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Soumya (supra) was challenged in W.A.No.350/2013, since it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the 51A claimant had obtained employment elsewhere, the Writ Appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment, however, without going into the merits of the matter. 11. 10. Though the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Soumya (supra) was challenged in W.A.No.350/2013, since it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the 51A claimant had obtained employment elsewhere, the Writ Appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment, however, without going into the merits of the matter. 11. In Kalavathy C. v. State of Kerala and Ors., [ 2014 (3) KHC 253 ], the question was whether the preferential claim of a thrown out teacher must be in tune with the qualification which they had while holding the post at the time of relief. The incidental question was whether a thrown out teacher could aspire for getting appointment only in respect of those types of posts which they held earlier and got their appointment approved. Differing from the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Soumya (supra), the Division Bench, after referring to the Rules prior to the amendment and the amended rules, held as under: 9. Reading of the above shows that as in the case of Rule as it originally stood, it provides that qualified teachers, who are relieved from service, in the circumstances enumerated therein, shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies. However, in addition to what was already provided, Rule also extends that preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same, higher or lower category of teaching posts. This extended benefit is available to the teacher only subject to the further condition that the teacher should be qualified to the teaching posts in which the vacancies that may arise in future and there is no claimant under R.43 in the lower category. 10. One cannot have a quarrel that the Rule in question extends the benefit of concession to teachers who are thrown out of employment. The legal position is trite that Rules or orders providing concessions should be construed strictly. If the Rule is so construed, from the opening part of the Rule itself, it is evident that the benefit of the Rule is applicable only to qualified teachers who are relieved in the circumstances mentioned in the Rule. Such a qualified teacher who is relieved from service can claim preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts to which he is qualified. Such a qualified teacher who is relieved from service can claim preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts to which he is qualified. Therefore, for a teacher to claim preference as provided under R.51A as amended, the teacher should be qualified at the time of relief and there is nothing in the Rule suggesting that a R.51A claim can be sustained on the strength of qualifications acquired subsequent to relief from service. If it is otherwise, the words ‘qualified teachers who are relieved’ mentioned in the Rule will be otiose. It is such a teacher who is eligible to claim the preferential rights that are provided in the Rule. 11. Further, the extended benefit to such a teacher is to claim preference for re - appointment to the same, lower or higher category of teaching posts. The words lower and higher occurring in the Rule should be understood in the context of the word ‘same’. This therefore means that the lower and the higher posts should be in the same discipline in which the teacher has rendered service as a qualified teacher. In other words, one cannot work in one discipline and claim the benefit of preference under R.51A to a post in a different discipline, be it to a lower or higher post. 12. The Division Bench rightly took the view that the Rule is intended to extend the benefit of concession to teachers who are thrown out of employment. However, by holding that Rules or Orders providing concessions are to be construed strictly, it was held that the benefit of the rule is applicable only to qualified teachers, who are relieved in the circumstances mentioned in the Rule. The Division Bench went on to hold that for a teacher to claim preference as provided under Rule 51A as amended, the teacher should be qualified at the time of relief and that there was nothing in the rule suggesting that a Rule 51A claim can be sustained on the strength of the qualifications acquired subsequent to relief from service. It was held by this Court, if any other interpretation is given, the words ‘qualified teachers who are relieved’ mentioned in the rule will be otiose. It was also held that the words ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ occurring in the rule should be understood in the context of the word ‘same’. It was held by this Court, if any other interpretation is given, the words ‘qualified teachers who are relieved’ mentioned in the rule will be otiose. It was also held that the words ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ occurring in the rule should be understood in the context of the word ‘same’. Finally, it was observed that a teacher cannot work in one discipline and claim the benefit of preference under Rule 51A to a post in a different discipline, be it to a lower or higher post. It needs to be noted at this juncture that their Lordships of the Division Bench while rendering Kalavathy (supra) was persuaded by precedents which were rendered based on the Rule prior to the amendment which was brought in. 13. After considering the views of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Soumya (supra) and that of the Division Bench of this Court in Kalavathy (supra), we have no doubt in my mind that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge is one which is in consonance with the legislative object and the purpose of the Statute. 14. To appreciate the relevant aspects, we may have to understand the legislative history and the steps taken by the law makers to ensure that the provisions enable a better organization and development of educational institutions in the State and the interest of teaching and non-teaching staff are protected. 15. The Kerala Education Act, 1958, was enacted to provide for the better organization and development of educational institutions in the State. Section 36 (1) of the Act empowers the Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Chapter XIV-A of the Rules deals with the conditions of service of Aided-school teachers. Rule 1 to 6 in this Chapter were substituted by Notification G.R.O. No.43 of 1965 published in the Kerala Gazette No. 5 dated 2.2.1965. A glance at Rule 1 to 5 would reveal that though the rules provided that only persons possessing the prescribed qualifications are to be appointed as Managers, due to a dearth of qualified teachers, unqualified teachers also used to be appointed. A glance at Rule 1 to 5 would reveal that though the rules provided that only persons possessing the prescribed qualifications are to be appointed as Managers, due to a dearth of qualified teachers, unqualified teachers also used to be appointed. The Government felt that their interest should be protected and it was in the said circumstances that Rule 5 was brought in whereby unqualified teachers appointed after 2.2.1965 and who acquired the prescribed qualifications were granted preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same educational agency. Later Chapter XXI was included in the Rules. Rules 1 and 2 are of some relevance and the same reads as follows: 1. Subject to the provisions of rule 2, Managers of aided schools shall appoint as teachers in aided schools only candidates who possess the minimum qualifications prescribed under section 10 of the Act. 2(1) Whenever a vacancy occurs, the manager shall follow the directions issued by Government from time to time for ascertaining the availability of qualified hands. In case candidates with required qualifications are not available, the Manager, may, with the previous approval of the District Educational Officer concerned provisionally appoint from among the applicants, candidates whose qualifications conform to the greatest possible extent to the prescribed qualifications and who are proficient to teach the subject/language till qualified hand become available. The duration of the appointment of an unqualified hand shall in no case go beyond the school year in which the appointment is made and availability of qualified hands shall be ascertained again and the approval of the District Educational Officer obtained before the candidate is appointed against in the next school year. Candidates appointed as per this rule have no preferential claim for future appointment on this ground. However, in case qualified hands are not available, candidates who do not possess the prescribed qualifications and who are appointed under this rule shall be appointed in future vacancies in the school. 16. The intent and purport of Rule 5 was interpreted by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Poulose K.V. v. Assistant Educational Officer, [1967 KHC 316] and it was observed that Rule 5 was brought into the Rule Book for the protection of unqualified teachers from exploitation by Managers of Aided Schools. 16. The intent and purport of Rule 5 was interpreted by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Poulose K.V. v. Assistant Educational Officer, [1967 KHC 316] and it was observed that Rule 5 was brought into the Rule Book for the protection of unqualified teachers from exploitation by Managers of Aided Schools. This Court noticed that it is a known notorious fact that the Managers of the Aided Schools traffic in the appointment of teachers and create as many vacancies as possible by making temporary and short term appointments and receive large amounts of money from the candidates for making the appointment for which purpose they lookout for a new victim. Rule 5 was included to remedy this evil and to give a right for preferential appointment to a person who was once an unqualified teacher and who subsequently acquired the prescribed qualification. In other words, if one has once secured an appointment in an aided school, he could subsequently claim it as a matter of right provided, there is a vacancy and he has acquired the prescribed qualification. The Manager is thus prevented from having a second opportunity from making an illegal profit in respect of such a vacancy, either from the teacher or from a fresh candidate. This observation made by the learned Single Judge after scanning the entire provisions still holds good. 17. In Rev. Fr. Xavier v. State of Kerala, [ 1971 KLT 941 ], a Division Bench of this Court, had occasion to hold that the intention of the Rule making authority in enacting Rule 5 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER could only have been to confer the benefit of a preference for appointment on persons appointed temporarily as unqualified teachers subsequent to 2.2.1965 on which date, Rule 1 to 6 of Chapter XIV-A was brought into force. 18. Chapter XIV-A of the KER deals with Conditions of Service of Aided School Teachers. Originally, Rule 1 conferred powers on the Government to appoint teachers in Government and Aided Schools as (a) Permanent (b) Acting or (c) Temporary, subject to the qualification laid down by Government from time to time. Rule 2 as it then stood provided that the appointment of unqualified teachers made under Rule 2(1) and 2A of Chapter XXI shall be deemed as acting till they are confirmed. 19. Rule 2 as it then stood provided that the appointment of unqualified teachers made under Rule 2(1) and 2A of Chapter XXI shall be deemed as acting till they are confirmed. 19. Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER was there in the Statute book from the commencement of the Act. The said rule reads thus: "43. Subject to Rules 44 and 45 and considerations of efficiency and any general order that may be issued by the Government, vacancies in any higher grade of pay shall be filled up by promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade according to seniority if such hands are available. Note: A teacher in a lower grade of pay in one category of post is eligible for promotion to a higher grade of pay in another category of post provided: (i) he has the prescribed qualifications; and (ii) there is no teacher with the prescribed qualifications in the lower grade of pay of the category of post to which promotions are to be made." 20. The said provision says that subject to Rule 44 (which deals with the appointment of Headmasters subject to seniority) and Rule 45 (which is an exception to Rule 44), and considerations of efficiency and orders issued by the Government, vacancies in any higher grade of pay shall be filled up by promotions of qualified hands in the lower grade according to seniority, if such hands are available. 21. Rule 51 A was incorporated in Chapter XIV-A of the KER vide G.O.(P) No.287/66/Edn dated 20.06.1966. The above rule as it stood then reads thus: "51 A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency, provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency." 22. Thus, those teachers who were qualified at the time of appointment and who were relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 would have a preference for appointment to future vacancies under the same educational agency subject to the rider that they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other educational agency. 23. Thus, those teachers who were qualified at the time of appointment and who were relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 would have a preference for appointment to future vacancies under the same educational agency subject to the rider that they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other educational agency. 23. On 10.10.1967, a Note was added to Rule 5 of Chapter XIV-A, which provided that unqualified teachers appointed after 2.2.1965 and those who acquire the prescribed qualification shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same educational agency. The said rule reads as follows: Note: If more than one person acquire the prescribed qualification subsequently, preference as among them shall be given to the person who acquired the qualifications earliest. If more than one person acquires the prescribed qualification on the same date, the person with the earliest date of first appointment as an unqualified hand shall be preferred. 24. Later, Note (2) was added, which reads as follows: (2) if there are claimants under this Rule and Rule 51A, preference shall be given to those coming under Rule 51A”. 25. In other words, what was intended was that if there are unqualified claimants and qualified claimants, preference shall be granted to those claimants coming under Rule 51A of the KER. 26. The discussions above would reveal that the intention of the lawmakers by making provision under Rule 5 was for conferring on unqualified teachers appointed temporarily under Rule 2, a right to preference in the matter of appointment to future vacancies on their getting qualified. What has really been done by the Government is to prescribe a condition of service for such teachers who are temporarily appointed under Rule 2 at a time when they were unqualified. The wording used in Rule 5 also indicates that the benefit of its provisions is intended to be applied only to unqualified teachers who are appointed subsequent to its commencement. 27. Through an amendment brought about in Rule 1 of Chapter XIV-A, the provision for appointment of unqualified candidates was dispensed with, with effect from 18.7.1972. Chapter XXI was also omitted by G.O.(P) No. 94/72/S.Edn. dated 4.7.1972. After 1972, the practice of appointing unqualified candidates was discontinued. 28. 27. Through an amendment brought about in Rule 1 of Chapter XIV-A, the provision for appointment of unqualified candidates was dispensed with, with effect from 18.7.1972. Chapter XXI was also omitted by G.O.(P) No. 94/72/S.Edn. dated 4.7.1972. After 1972, the practice of appointing unqualified candidates was discontinued. 28. It would be pertinent to note that at the time of insertion of Rule 51A, there were two types of teachers – “qualified” and “unqualified teachers”. Rule 51A enabled the restoration of retrenched teachers to the identical post which she/he would have occupied but for termination of vacancy. Due to “identity of post” the number of 51A claimants seeking appointments increased day by day. Rule 43 as it stood did not enable reversion to the feeder post for the promotee teacher on being terminated for want of vacancy or on the abolition of the promoted post due to division fall. 29. The above scenario prevailed till 2005, when the rule making authority decided to amend Rule 51A by G.O.(P) 187/05/G.Edn. dated 17.6.2005 which was published in the Gazette on 25.6.2005. By this amendment, after the words ‘future vacancies’ in Rule 51A, ‘in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise’ was added. The reasons which persuaded the Government to bring in the amendment was lucidly explained by K.S.Radhakrishnan, J. (as His Lordship then was) in State of Kerala and Ors. v. Sneha Cheriyan, [ (2013) 5 SCC 160 ], which reads as follows: 3. In the State of Kerala, the power for appointment of teachers in aided schools is conferred on Managers of such schools under S.11 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') while the salary and other benefits are to be borne by the State Government under S.9 of the Act. Qualified teachers who are so appointed when relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies as per R.51A of Chap.14A of the KER. Therefore, when vacancy arises, the Manager is bound to comply with the procedure under R.51A and cannot deny that statutory claim. When once a valid appointment is given to the teachers and such appointments are approved ipso facto they become entitled to the benefits under R.51A. 4. Therefore, when vacancy arises, the Manager is bound to comply with the procedure under R.51A and cannot deny that statutory claim. When once a valid appointment is given to the teachers and such appointments are approved ipso facto they become entitled to the benefits under R.51A. 4. The Management and the teachers, it is generally known, started misusing the above statutory provisions for getting preference for future appointments by effecting appointments by creating vacancies during the academic year. Such unethical and unhealthy practices led to creation of anticipatory vacancies and multiple claimants under R.51A causing drain on State exchequer since the State is paying the salary. The Government in order to check such practices issued an order GO (P) No.169/04.G.Edn. dated 15/06/2004 stating that the claim for re - appointment under R.51A of the KER would be limited to those who had been appointed against regular/leave vacancies having a duration of not less than one academic year. Further, it was also stated that vacancies having duration of less than one academic year would be filled up on daily wage basis and in order to give effect to that Government order, it was ordered that necessary amendments would be made to sub-rule (3) of R.7A, Chap.14A of the KER. 30. As observed above, the Government noticed that the Management, as well as the teachers, started misusing the statutory provisions for getting preference for future appointments. Such practices led to the creation of anticipatory vacancies and multiple claimants under Rule 51A. The reason behind the incorporation of Rule 51A in the Rule book was to ensure that the qualified teachers who lost employment in the schools due to division fall or other adverse circumstances for which they were not responsible, was restored. 31. While bringing about the amendment, the Government was conscious that the working of Rule 51A was causing impediments in ensuring the livelihood of the teachers who happened to be retrenched. The lawmakers wanted to ensure that the employment of those teachers who were retrenched was restored in future vacancies that arise in the very same educational agency. The Government also wanted to curb the mischiefs adopted by certain management and teachers. 32. The lawmakers wanted to ensure that the employment of those teachers who were retrenched was restored in future vacancies that arise in the very same educational agency. The Government also wanted to curb the mischiefs adopted by certain management and teachers. 32. The change brought about in the Kerala Educational (Amendment) Rules, 2005 after the amendment in the year 2005, is in the following lines: "In R.51A: (i) after the words "to future vacancies", the following words shall be inserted, namely: - "in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified, that may arise" (ii) after Note I, the following Note and Explanation shall be inserted, namely: "Note 1A. - Fresh appointment to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only after providing re - appointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. Explanation. - For the purpose of this clause, "Protected teacher" means a teacher who has been retrenched for want of vacancy after putting such length of regular service that may be specified by the Government or who is eligible for such Protection as per GO (Ms) No. 104/69/Edn. dated 06/03/1969 or GO (Ms.) No. 231/84/G.Edn dated 27/10/1984 or any other orders issued by Government from time to time." 33. As rightly held by this Court in Soumya (supra), the legislature has consciously inserted the words "in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise" after the words "to future vacancies". Several vacancies may arise in the same vacancy due to retirement, dismissal, promotion, transfer etc. Under the Rules prior to the 2005 amendment, since nothing else was mentioned except the reference to “future vacancies”, it had necessarily to be confined to the “particular post” that the person was holding at the time of relief. The category of teaching posts takes in several types of posts like LPSAs (of different faculties) UPSAs (of different faculties), HSAs (of different faculties), Language Teachers (of different languages) and so on. The category of teaching posts takes in several types of posts like LPSAs (of different faculties) UPSAs (of different faculties), HSAs (of different faculties), Language Teachers (of different languages) and so on. Furthermore, the intention of the lawmakers is clearly discernible from 'Note 1A' added to Rule 51A, wherein it has been stated that fresh appointment to the vacancies arising in the Same, Higher or Lower level of category of teaching posts under the educational agency shall be made, only after providing reappointment to such teachers thrown out from the service and protected teachers available under the educational agency. 34. It would be profitable to bear in mind at this juncture that by virtue of the law declared by this Court that “identity of posts” has to be maintained, a Rule 51A claimant had to wait till a vacancy occurs in the same post previously held by the teacher. This virtually caused hardships to teachers who were promoted in short term vacancies to higher posts. It was considering the same that the Government thought it fit to accommodate the teachers thrown out from the service and protected teachers, as entitled for appointment, against the vacancies arising in future, in the Same, Higher or Lower level of teaching posts under the concerned educational agency, provided the relieved teacher is fully qualified to be appointed to the post that may arise in the same, higher or lower category of posts. Thus, after the amendment, the necessity to have identity with the post previously held by the teacher has virtually disappeared. The intention of the Rule making authority is obviously to extend the benefit to the teachers already thrown out, as above, thus with a clear objective to bring down the number of persons standing in the queue as Rule 51A claimants. The only stipulation is as to the possession of the necessary qualification. Taking note of the fact that the intention of the Government was to bring down the numbers of 51A claimants to the minimum, a liberal interpretation has to be given to give effect to the wordings of the Rule. The only requirement is that the concerned teacher has to be duly qualified to hold the post. Taking note of the fact that the intention of the Government was to bring down the numbers of 51A claimants to the minimum, a liberal interpretation has to be given to give effect to the wordings of the Rule. The only requirement is that the concerned teacher has to be duly qualified to hold the post. The restricted interpretation that the teacher has to be qualified at the time of retrenchment for being appointed in another post in the same lower or higher category will defeat the very object of the amendment. 35. Serious confusion has resulted in the usage of the word “qualified” in Rule 51A. The Rule starts with reference to qualified teachers who are relieved. The word “qualified” used in the beginning only means that the teacher is qualified and not “unqualified” as referred to in Rule 5 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. As per the amendment brought about in the year 2005, it is mentioned that those teachers would have a preference for appointment to future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which she/he is qualified. The words “for which he is qualified” is used in the present tense. It can only mean that the required qualification of the retrenched teacher for the vacant post is as on the date of arising of vacancy and not the qualification held by the teacher on the date of retrenchment. In other words, the word “Qualified” used at the beginning of the provision is for restricting the preferential right only to the qualified teacher in service in exclusion of the unqualified teachers; as, during the period of introduction of Rule 51A in the KER, there were teachers without qualification being appointed in schools as per the provisions contained in the then existing Chapter XXI. Note 1A of Rule 51A (which also came into existence by 17.06.2005 amendment) stipulates that fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower-level category of teaching post under the Educational Agency shall be made, only after providing reappointment to teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. 36. Note 1A of Rule 51A (which also came into existence by 17.06.2005 amendment) stipulates that fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower-level category of teaching post under the Educational Agency shall be made, only after providing reappointment to teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the Educational Agency. 36. Furthermore, the explanatory note to the Rule would shed some light on the thought process of the Rule makers as they have taken note of the fact that this Court has interpreted the Rule prior to the amendment that there must be identity with regard to the nature of the post claimed and previously held by the teacher. The Government felt that the same would cause hardships to senior teachers who were promoted in short vacancies in higher posts. The note says that the Government considers that a teacher thrown out from service and a protected teacher should be entitled to be appointed against vacancies arising in future, in the same or higher or lower category of teaching post under the Educational Agency, provided the teacher is fully qualified to be appointed to the post. This explanation, in our opinion, is a contemporaneous exposition of the rule by the rule making authority itself. It is true that any interpretation or stand taken by those who are entrusted with the execution of a statute cannot govern the interpretation of the statute, but it is equally true that contemporaneous exposition of a statute or rule by those who are entrusted to execute or implement the statutory provisions or rules is a useful aid in interpreting the statute unless there are cogent reasons to depart from it. (See K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Ors., (1981) 131 ITR 597 ). 37. The only eligibility to get the benefit under Rule 51A is minimum service for a period of one year before relief. The use of the expression “for which he is qualified that may arise” can only mean that the teacher needs to be qualified when the vacancy arises. The Rule maker could have used the words “was qualified” if the intention was otherwise. It is settled in service jurisprudence that qualifications are to be needed when vacancy arises and not before. The use of the expression “for which he is qualified that may arise” can only mean that the teacher needs to be qualified when the vacancy arises. The Rule maker could have used the words “was qualified” if the intention was otherwise. It is settled in service jurisprudence that qualifications are to be needed when vacancy arises and not before. In other words, if what is granted under Rule 51A is a priority in appointment, the conditions for such priority has to be reckoned as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy and the same would include the conditions prescribed for claiming such preference as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. We are therefore of the view that it was without taking note of the above aspects that the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra) took the view that there is nothing in Rule 51A to suggest that a claim under the said provision can be sustained on the strength of qualification acquired subsequent to relief from service. We are also unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench that the lower and higher posts should be in the same discipline in which the teacher has rendered service as a qualified teacher. 38. There is yet another matter. In Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka and Others ( (1992) 3 SCC 666 ), the Apex Court had observed that only education can equip a citizen to participate in achieving the objectives enshrined in the Constitution. It has also been held that the Right to education flows directly from the right to life. No one can dispute that education is intrinsically valuable as humankind’s most effective tool for personal empowerment. In an essay penned by Richard Pierre Claude in the International Journal of Human rights, the essayist has stated that education takes on the status of a human right because it is integral to and enhances human dignity through its fruits of knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Moreover, for instrumental reasons education has the status of a multi-faceted social, economic and cultural human right. It is a social right because in the context of the community, it promotes the full development of the human personality. It is an economic right because it facilitates economic self-sufficiency through employment or self-employment. Moreover, for instrumental reasons education has the status of a multi-faceted social, economic and cultural human right. It is a social right because in the context of the community, it promotes the full development of the human personality. It is an economic right because it facilitates economic self-sufficiency through employment or self-employment. It is a cultural right because the international community has directed education toward the building of a universal culture of human rights. In short, education is the very prerequisite for the individual to function fully as a human being in modern society. If the interpretation given in Kalavathy is accepted, a thrown out teacher has to sit idle waiting for her turn to occur. There is no incentive for her to acquire better and higher educational qualifications and improve her worth amongst her peers. This would be antithetical to the right of the teacher to improve herself by pursuing her education to even higher levels. We are of the view that nothing in Rule 51A would prevent a teacher from acquiring any additional qualification during the period when they are thrown out of service. If the interpretation given in Kalavathy is accepted, Rule 51A would not apply to a new post with a specific qualification which comes into being after a teacher is thrown out of service. The KER gives incentives to teachers to acquire additional qualifications after getting an appointment and this is in larger public interest to further the interest of the institution and the students. 39. We would like to reiterate that if a statutory provision is intelligible in the context of ordinary language, it ought, without more, to be interpreted in accordance with the meaning an ordinary speaker of the language would ascribe to it as its obvious meaning unless there is sufficient reason for a different interpretation. Thus, an ‘ordinary meaning’ or ‘grammatical meaning’ does not imply that the Judge attributes a meaning to the words of a statute independently of their context or of the purpose of the statute, but rather that he adopts a meaning which is appropriate in relation to the immediately obvious and unresearched context and purpose in and for which they are used. By enabling citizens (and their advisers) to rely on ordinary meanings, unless notice is given to the contrary, the legislature contributes to legal certainty and predictability for citizens and to greater transparency in its own decisions, both of which are important values in a democratic society.” (See Cross in Statutory Interpretation 3rd edn ., 1995 p. 32) 40. Justice G.P Singh in his celebrated work — Principles of Statutory Interpretation (8th Edn., 2001) states (at p. 54): “The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support the addition or substitution of words or which results in the rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. The learned Author has stated that the rule of literal construction whereby the words have to be assigned their natural and grammatical meaning can be departed from but subject to caution. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. A departure is permissible if it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used or the object of the statute in which they occur requires a different meaning. 41. It needs to be borne in mind that while bringing about amendments to Rule 51A, amendment was also brought in to Rule 43 as per which on reduction of the post in the promoted category, the promotee teacher is entitled for reversion to the post from which she was promoted. Only in the absence of Rule 51A claimant “Qualified” for the post, can new appointments be made by the Manager. Restricting the appointment of 51A claimants to “the identity of the post” from which the teacher is retrenched/relieved, will result in creating more 51A claimants in future. It was in the said circumstances that Note 1A was inserted in order to reduce the number of 51A claimants by barring fresh appointments. It is settled that the relevant date for holding qualifications for appointment to a post is the date of arising of the vacancy or the date of filling up of the post, as the case may be. It is settled that the relevant date for holding qualifications for appointment to a post is the date of arising of the vacancy or the date of filling up of the post, as the case may be. In view of the above, the words, “in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified”, can only be interpreted to mean qualified on the date of arising of the vacancy or the date of filling up of the post. This is the only interpretation that can be granted in view of the words used by the rule making authority. The view taken by the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra) that as Rule 51A extends the benefit of concession to teachers who are thrown out of employment and therefore, for a teacher to claim preference as provided under Rule 51A as amended, the teacher should be qualified, at the time of relief itself, for the post that may arise in future, cannot get our approval as it is a restrictive interpretation without taking note of the reasons which persuaded the rule making authority to bring out amendment to the rule. We also do not approve the view taken by the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra) that the words “lower” and “higher” occurring in the Rule should be understood in the context of the word “same” and that the lower and higher posts should be in the same discipline in which the teacher has rendered service as a qualified teacher. 42. This view taken by us can be illustrated in the following manner. The amendment brought to Rule 43 and Rule 51A would satisfy all categories of teachers – retrenched as well as in service. Normally, 3 types of situations arise under Rule 51A. They are: i. “A”, a TTC holder working as LPSA gets thrown out. In such a situation “A” can aspire for LPSA or UPSA post since he is qualified for both posts. (Same Category). If subsequently, the teacher acquires B.Ed, he could be accommodated as H.S.A. in preference to a fresh hand subject to the rider that there are no teachers awaiting promotion under R.43. ii. “B”, a B.Ed holder with a degree, who is appointed as UPSA gets retrenched. (Same Category). If subsequently, the teacher acquires B.Ed, he could be accommodated as H.S.A. in preference to a fresh hand subject to the rider that there are no teachers awaiting promotion under R.43. ii. “B”, a B.Ed holder with a degree, who is appointed as UPSA gets retrenched. “B” can aspire for the same post (UPSA) and also to the higher post (HSA) under the amended provision, subject to the rider that there are no teachers awaiting promotion under R.43. This is because the teacher is qualified to hold both posts. iii. “C”, a B.Ed holder with a degree is appointed as HSA and the said teacher gets thrown out. “C” can aspire for the same post (HSA), if there are no teachers awaiting promotion under Rule 43; and also to a lower post (UPSA) under the amended provision as the teacher is qualified for holding both the posts. iii. Suppose if “B” and “C” are B.Ed holders with a degree in physics and were appointed as UPSA/HSA (physics) respectively at the time of relief. During the period they are languishing without employment, “B” and “C” acquire a degree in English. In view of the amendment, the teachers can aspire to raise a claim for HSA (English) post also, provided there are no teachers awaiting promotion under Rule 43. 43. From the illustrations above, it can be seen that the right of teachers awaiting promotion under Rule 43 is safeguarded, as the appointment of Rule 51A claimants are made only after satisfying the right of promotion of teachers in the feeder category. 44. We may also illustrate certain situations that may arise in case of promotee teachers. i. “A”, a teacher promoted as HSA (English) from the post of UPSA in school “X”. In the resultant vacancy “B”, a graduate B.Ed. holder in (Social Science) is appointed as UPSA. Thereafter, no appointments are made in the posts of UPSA and HSA in the school “X”. While continuance of “A” as HSA, there occurs division fall resulting in the abolishment of the post of HSA; then as per the amendment brought in Rule 43 “A” has to be reverted as UPSA retrenching “B” from the post of UPSA, “B” being the last come in the feeder post. “B” will become a Rule 51A claimant. ii. A few years later, an HSA post gets sanctioned in the above school “X”. “B” will become a Rule 51A claimant. ii. A few years later, an HSA post gets sanctioned in the above school “X”. In the meanwhile, the above retrenched UPSA “B” acquires B.Ed. in English. Though “B” is qualified under Rule 51A for being appointed as HSA (English); she/he cannot be appointed as the above reverted HSA “A” is awaiting promotion to the post of HSA(English). As per the amended provision “A” has to be promoted and in the resultant vacancy of UPSA “B” has to be appointed. 45. The above illustrations would show that the amendment protects both vertical and horizontal appointments and also manages to reduce the number of 51A claimants, by preventing fresh appointments. 46. It would also be apposite to note that Rule 51A specifically states that if there are more than one claimant for the post then the order of preference shall be according to the date of appointment considering the subject ratio. The salutary intent is to prevent the retrenched teachers from remaining outside without employment for a long time and also serves the interest of teachers awaiting promotion in the feeder category. If the meaning of the words “for which he is qualified” in Rule 51A is restricted to the qualification that the teacher had at the time of relief, it would defeat the object of the amendment. It is thus abundantly clear that the qualification is tested at the time of arising of the vacancy after relief and nothing in Rule 51A prevents a teacher from acquiring additional qualification during the period when they are thrown out of service. It needs to be borne in mind that Rule 51A provides a right to get an appointment and not a right to be considered for an appointment. 47. Under Note 2 to Rule 51A, the Manager is mandatorily bound to issue an order of appointment to the teacher by registered post and give a period of 14 clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time, the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under Rule 51A would be forfeited if the same is not exercised within another seven clear days. If the teacher does not join duty in time, the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under Rule 51A would be forfeited if the same is not exercised within another seven clear days. Only if nothing is heard from the teacher even thereafter, the preferential right under the rule can be regarded as forfeited. This Court has held in Vinayaraj K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., [ 2014 (1) KHC 205 ] that the requirement under the Note is mandatory. In this context, it would be profitable to note that Rule 20 to 26 in Chapter XIV-A of the KER. 20. Service Records:- Service Books in the Form as prescribed by Government shall be maintained for all aided and recognised school teachers. 21. Every teacher shall provide at his cost a Service Book and 3 copies of the form prescribed for History of Service. 22. The entries in the History of Service shall be a complete record of the previous service of the teacher till the opening of the Service Book for him. 23. The entries in the History of Service Form shall be completed in the manner prescribed by the Director. 24. One copy of the History of Service Form shall be deemed to be an Annexures to the Teacher's Service Book and shall be securely attached to the Service Book. The initial salary of the teacher at the time of commencement of the school as an aided school shall be fixed by the Director and entered in the History of Service Form or the Service Book. Note:- In the case of any teacher appointed after the passing of these rules, the Annexure may be dispensed with if the teacher has no previous service at all. 25. The entries in the Service Book shall commence from a date not later than the teacher's first admission to service in an aided school. 26. The Headmaster shall be responsible to the Manager and the Department for the custody and the proper maintenance of Service Books and shall produce them for inspection by Departmental authorities whenever required to do so. Note:- (i) Scrutiny of Service Books shall be one of the important items to be attended to by the Educational Officers during annual inspection. 26. The Headmaster shall be responsible to the Manager and the Department for the custody and the proper maintenance of Service Books and shall produce them for inspection by Departmental authorities whenever required to do so. Note:- (i) Scrutiny of Service Books shall be one of the important items to be attended to by the Educational Officers during annual inspection. (ii) The Service Book of the Headmaster shall be maintained by the Educational Officer. 48. The provisions insist that service books in the Form as prescribed by the Government shall be maintained for all Aided and recognised schools. The entries in the history of service shall be a complete record of the previous service of the teacher till the opening of the service book. The Headmaster is responsible to the Manager and the Department for the custody and proper maintenance of service books and he is required to produce the same for inspection before the departmental authorities as and when called upon to do so. The service books of Government servants are to be maintained as per the provisions contained in Part–III of the Kerala Service Rules. Rule 142 (iii) of Part-III KSR mandate that the service books of retrenched employees shall be retained by the head of the office for a period of 25 years from the date of retrenchment. Further, Rule 143 of Part-III KSR mandate that every step in an employees’ official life must be recorded in his service book. Hence it is for the retrenched teacher of an aided school (51A claimant) to ensure that the particulars of her qualifications acquired subsequent to her retrenchment is recorded in the service book which would enable the Manager to consider her according to her qualification to the posts falling vacant in the school and issue appointment order to her as contemplated under Note 2 to Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A KER. ORDER OF THE COURT In view of the above, we answer the reference and the following shall be the Order of the Court: (a) We hold that the interpretation of Rule 51A in Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 given by the learned Single Judge in Soumya (supra) lays down the correct law which is in consonance with the legislative object and the intent behind the Rule. We do not approve the view taken by the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra). We do not approve the view taken by the Division Bench in Kalavathy (supra). (b) We hold that a teacher who has obtained a right to preferential appointment to future vacancies in identified posts, based on past service rendered in a teaching post in the school prior to retrenchment therefrom, need to possess the qualification required for the same, lower or higher post, in which future vacancies arise, only on the date of arising of the vacancy or on the date of filling up of the post, as the case may be. (c) Fresh appointments to vacancies arising in the Same or Higher or Lower level category of teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made, only after providing reappointment to such teachers thrown out from service and protected teachers available under the 02-06-2022/True Copy/Assistant Registrar Educational Agency. (d) It is for the educational agency to peruse the service records of the teachers and ensure whether any qualified hand is available to be accommodated in a vacancy in the concerned category of posts in the three different levels (Same or Higher or Lower levels) as on the date of arising of the vacancy and only if no Rule 51A or Rule 43 claimant is available that it would be open for the Educational Agency to go for fresh recruitment. The reference is answered accordingly. The Writ Appeals are now transmitted to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with this order.