JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. These appeals arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge. The first appellant is the manager of an aided school, 2nd and 3rd appellants are the headmistresses appointed by him and the appellants 4 to 6 are the senior teachers. The dispute arose consequent upon the vacancy arose to the post of headmasters on 01.06.2021 in S.N.M Higher secondary school, Purakkad, an aided school. Sreerekha raised a claim for appointment. Her claim for appointment was overlooked by the manager, holding that she did not have continuous service of 12 years, a qualification prescribed for appointment as headmistress as contemplated under Rule 44 A(1) of Chapter 14A of Kerala Education Rules. The department did not accept the objection made by the manager as against the claim raised by Sreerekha. The department, therefore, refused the approval of appointment made by the manager overlooking the claim of Sreerekha. 2. Sreerekha was appointed in a leave vacancy w.e.f. 13.07.2007. Thereafter, w.e.f. 01.06.2012, she was appointed in regular vacancy. The case of the manager is that her service can be counted only from 01.06.2012. The manager relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajamma P.R. v. Manager, St. George High School and Others [ 2012 (3) KHC 27 ]. A division bench of this Court in above dictum held that in reckoning continuous service, broken period of service rendered in same school or other school in a leave vacancy cannot be clubbed with regular service. The learned Single Judge noted that the judgment as above was based on the premise that, when there is a break in service and there is no continuity of 12 years, different spells stretching to 12 years cannot be treated as a 12 years continuous service. Therefore, the above judgment has no application in this matter. There is no dispute in this case that Sreerekha had continuous service, since her appointment was in the leave vacancy. If the appointment was in substantial vacancy, and such teacher had continuous service of 12 years, then it can be said that the teacher has qualification. Admittedly, the teacher served without any break. Merely for the reason that her initial appointment was in a leave vacancy and followed in regular vacancy, it does not mean that there is a break in service. Admittedly, the teacher served without any break. Merely for the reason that her initial appointment was in a leave vacancy and followed in regular vacancy, it does not mean that there is a break in service. It is to be noted that law does not recognise different spells of service having interval to have a continuity, but only refers continuous service without any interval. Since Sreerekha had continuous service without any break, she is entitled to be appointed as headmistress. Hence, no interference is warranted in these appeals and the same stand dismissed.