JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. These matters are related to appointment of Administrative Head/Principal of Vocational Higher Secondary School, Karavaram in Trivandrum District. The post of Principal became vacant on 1/6/2020. There are no statutory rules prescribing eligibility criteria for appointment as Principal of Vocational Higher Secondary School. As early as on 19/1/2012, Government issued an order, prescribing qualification as follows: English translation of the above government order reads thus: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Department of General Education – Vocational Higher Secondary Education – Personnel Affairs – Assignment of administrative duty of the vocational higher secondary school section to the senior-most vocational/non-vocational teacher in Vocational Higher Secondary schools – Orders issued. --------------------------------------------------------------------- General Education (S.C) Department G.O.(MS) No.18/2012/DGE. Thiruvananthapuram, dated 1st January, 2012 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference: - (1) Government Order (MS) No. 131/191/ DGE dated 20.08.1991. (2) Letter no. C.2/16822/07 dated 03.06.2011 of the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education. (3) Government Order (P) No. 85/2011/Fin dated 26.02.2011. Order As per the government order in reference (1), the heads of the schools offering vocational higher secondary courses were renamed as principals and a special pay was sanctioned for handling the work in the vocational higher secondary section as well. 2. However, the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, vide the letter in reference (2), brought to the notice of the Government the practical difficulties in carrying out the day to day business of Vocational Higher Secondary Section pursuant to the grant of additional charge to the Academic Head of the Schools conducting vocational higher secondary courses. 3. In high schools conducting vocational higher secondary courses, the responsibility of this section is now held by the headmasters of the said schools. The control over the headmasters is vested in the Director of General Education. As per rules, the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education has no control over them now. Moreover, due to the wide extent of their duties, they are unable to pay full attention to the administration of the Vocational Higher Secondary Section. There is a constant demand before the government from various corners that the post of principal should be created here as in higher secondary schools and the department staff should themselves be appointed as principals. The Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education has also requested the same. There is a constant demand before the government from various corners that the post of principal should be created here as in higher secondary schools and the department staff should themselves be appointed as principals. The Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education has also requested the same. In higher secondary schools, though the post of principal has been separately created, 'they have not been excluded from teaching duties'. As an amendment to the special rule is necessary for the creation of the post of principal for the vocational higher secondary section, this is a time consuming process. 4. As a remedy for the aforesaid matters, the Government are pleased to issue orders by provisionally assigning the administrative responsibility of the Vocational Higher Secondary School Section to "the vocational/non-vocational Teacher" who is the senior most in the Government sector and aided sector in vocational higher secondary schools in accordance with the following conditions. a) The seniority of vocational/non-vocational teachers shall be determined by taking into account the date on which they joined the said school. Age should be given priority if there are more persons who have entered service on the same day. b) Headmasters will continue to be headmasters of the high school section. c) Those who are thus given the charge of the vocational higher secondary section shall be entitled to a special allowance at the rate of Rs.1000 which is currently in receipt by the Headmaster. d) Those who are entrusted with this duty shall perform teaching also. e) The academic head of the vocational higher secondary section will cease to be eligible for the monthly special allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- which is currently in receipt. (By order of the Governor) Sd/- M. Sivasankar, Secretary to Government. Copy to:- 1) Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram 2) Director, Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram. 3) Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram, 4) Principal Accountant General, Audit, Thiruvananthapuram. 5) Accountant General, A & E, Thiruvananthapuram. 6) Director, I&PRD 7) Department of Finance 8) For all sections of the General Education Department. By order Sd/- Section Officer Copy:- 1) P.S. to The Minister for Education 2) P.A. to the Secretary, Department of General Education 2. 3) Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram, 4) Principal Accountant General, Audit, Thiruvananthapuram. 5) Accountant General, A & E, Thiruvananthapuram. 6) Director, I&PRD 7) Department of Finance 8) For all sections of the General Education Department. By order Sd/- Section Officer Copy:- 1) P.S. to The Minister for Education 2) P.A. to the Secretary, Department of General Education 2. The dispute arose consequent upon the claims made by three teachers, Smt.Priyadarsini S., Shri S.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu.B. The date of entry as Vocational Higher Secondary School Teacher in service of above teachers are as follows: i. Priyadarsini - 1/12/1995 as Vocational Teacher ii. Hariharan Pillai - 3/2/1997 as Non-Vocational Teacher iii. Sindu - 29/1/1996 as a Part-time Non Vocational Teacher 3. Sindhu was appointed as regular non vocational teacher on 5/8/1997. She had a claim that her regularisation was with effect from 1/7/1996. 4. The Manager appointed Hariharan Pillai as the Principal-in-charge. We are not adverting to the facts as the learned Single Judge dealt with the facts in detail. The Directorate of General Education addressed the matter pursuant to the direction of this Court. All three claims were heard. The Director was of the view that Priyadarsini was not entitled to be appointed as the Principal as she availed leave without allowance from 9/8/2004 to 8/3/2018. However, after adverting to the rival claims between Hariharan Pillai and Sindu, the Director noted that Sindu is the Senior-most teacher as she entered service on 29/1/1996. These orders were challenged before the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Single Judge upheld the claim of Sindu. This is how these appeals have been preferred by Priyadarsini and Hariharan Pillai. If this Court upholds the claim of Priyadarsini, inter se dispute of Hariharan Pillai and Sindu can be left open. Therefore, first we shall examine whether Priyadarsini is entitled to be appointed as the Principal. 6. Priyadarsini availed leave without allowance from 09/8/2004 to 8/3/2018. The vacancy arose on 1/6/2020. Government order does not speak about length of actual service required to be appointed as a Principal or as an Administrative Head. It only stipulates that the date of entry into service will have to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority. We note that Rule 44A of Chapter 14A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) prescribed a minimum qualification for Headmaster in High Schools/Training Schools by prescribing 12 years of continuous graduate service. It only stipulates that the date of entry into service will have to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority. We note that Rule 44A of Chapter 14A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) prescribed a minimum qualification for Headmaster in High Schools/Training Schools by prescribing 12 years of continuous graduate service. Absence of such stipulation in the executive order fortifies the fact that it is not continuous service, but the seniority alone preferred to be reckoned for appointing Administrative Head/Principal of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. We do not find any rules or executive orders prescribing that a person who availed leave without allowance will not be eligible to claim seniority from the original date of entry into service after rejoining duty. In case of normal promotion under the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR), Rule 28, and also under Rule 56 of Chapter 14A KER, incorporating KSR in regard to leave without allowance fortifies the legal position that a person who availed leave without allowance will lose seniority only during the period of leave and not after the period of leave. That means, if any junior supersedes the senior during the period of leave, senior cannot complain against such supersession. However, the situation is different when a senior joins duty after the leave. On rejoining duty, the senior will be entitled to have all privileges he had before he left. (See Rule 8 of KS&SSR 1958). Though KS&SSR will not have direct application in this matter, it can be taken as general principle of law applicable to employees who draw from public exchequer unless contrary stipulation is made under executive order or under special rules. Anyway, as already noted, there are no other special rules or executive orders that prevent a teacher from claiming seniority for being absent from service after the period of leave. In such circumstances, seniority must be reckoned from the date of entry in service. A Division Bench in Nirmala Devi v. State of Kerala and Others [2009 KHC 1340] in a matter related to leave without allowance, granted to a teacher of aided school, this Court categorically held as follows: 6. A reading of the above rule would show that if the vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose during the sixth respondent's leave period, the appellant could have been promoted and on her return, the sixth respondent should continue as a UPSA. A reading of the above rule would show that if the vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose during the sixth respondent's leave period, the appellant could have been promoted and on her return, the sixth respondent should continue as a UPSA. The sixth respondent, in that event, will not have any claim for promotion as Headmaster, reverting the appellant. But, in this case, no vacancy arose during the sixth respondent's leave period. Therefore, in the lower cadre of UPSA, the sixth respondent will not lose seniority and, in preference to the appellant, she is entitled for promotion to the vacancy which arose after her leave period. In view of the above position, we find that the Director of Public Instruction and the Government, as per Exts. P6 and P8 orders, decided in favour of the sixth respondent rightly. So, the learned Single Judge has correctly dismissed the Writ Petition. (emphasis supplied) 7. In the light of the above judgment and the principles of law, and in the absence of any stipulation in the executive order, Priyadarsini is entitled to claim the post of Principal in Vocational Higher Secondary School, in a vacancy which occurred after 1/6/2020. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. We order that Priyadarsini shall be appointed in the post of Principal forthwith. Inter se dispute between Hariharan Pillai and Sindu is left open. The writ appeals are disposed of as above.