JUDGMENT : 1. The question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether there exists any intelligible differentia in denying exemption from passing departmental tests to Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSSTs) in aided schools who have attained the age of 50 years, while granting such exemption to HSSTs in Government service under Rule 13B of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR). 2. Since the issue involved in both writ petitions is identical, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. WP(C) No.11715 of 2018 3. The petitioner herein entered service as HSA (Biology) on 04.10.1993. Subsequently, upon the establishment of the Higher Secondary Section, she was promoted as HSST (Botany). Thereafter, she was appointed as Principal of CMS HSS, Melukavu, on 01.08.2011, which appointment was approved by the Regional Deputy Director as per order dated 07.10.2011. Later, the Manager declared her probation with effect from 06.12.2013, upon her attaining the age of 51 years, taking into account the exemption available under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR as applicable to HSSTs in Government service. The petitioner was granted annual increments from 2013 to2016. 4. However, when she applied for the annual increment for the year 2017 on 04.01.2018, the same was denied on the ground that she had not passed the obligatory departmental tests, as evident from Ext.P2. Aggrieved thereby, she submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Regional Deputy Director and subsequently Ext.P4 before the Government, contending that upon attaining the age of 50 years, she was entitled to exemption from test qualifications on par with HSSTs in Government service. It was further contended that her appointment and promotion had already been duly approved. WP(C) No.6969 of 2021 5. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as HSST (Junior) (History) on 25.08.2003 and was promoted as HSST on 15.07.2004. Being the senior-most HSST, she was promoted as Principal with effect from 15.07.2004. The said appointment was approved as per order dated 12.08.2006 with effect from 15.07.2004. However, as per Ext.P3 dated 30.01.2021, the Regional Deputy Director informed that her probation could not be declared due to non-acquisition of departmental test qualifications. This position was reiterated by the Joint Director as per Ext.P4 and the Government as per Ext.P5, resulting in withholding of her salary from 2021 onwards. 6. However, as per Ext.P3 dated 30.01.2021, the Regional Deputy Director informed that her probation could not be declared due to non-acquisition of departmental test qualifications. This position was reiterated by the Joint Director as per Ext.P4 and the Government as per Ext.P5, resulting in withholding of her salary from 2021 onwards. 6. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Principals of aided Higher Secondary Schools are also entitled to exemption from test qualifications upon attaining the age of 50 years, as is the case with their counterparts in Government service. 7. The legal issue involved in these cases are summarised as follows: 8. The appointment of Principals in aided Higher Secondary Schools is governed by Rule 9, Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), which mandates passing of prescribed departmental tests during probation. Rule 7 of Chapter XXXII KER deals with probation. Rules 45B and 45BB of Chapter XIVA KER provide exemption from test qualifications to certain categories of teachers in aided schools upon attaining the age of 50 years. Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR grants permanent exemption from passing departmental tests to Government servants who attain the age of 50 years. 9. In both these cases, the appointments of the incumbents as Principal were approved by the respective Deputy Directors. The appointment of Principal in higher secondary school in aided sector is guided by Rule 9 Chapter XXXII KER, which says: “Every person appointed to the category of Principal, shall during the period of probation, pass the Account Test for Executive Officers (Kerala) or Account Test (Lower) if he has not already passed the test.” Rule 7 of chapter XXXII KER deals with the declaration of probation of higher secondary school teachers, and reads as follows: “Every person appointed to any of the categories shall from the date on which he joins duty be on probation. (i) if appointed by direct appointment or by transfer for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of 3 years and (ii) if appointed by promotion, or by transfer for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of two years. “ 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Rule 45B of Chapter XIVA KER grants permanent exemption to teachers who have attained the age of 50 years from acquiring the test qualifications specified in sub- rule (1). “ 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Rule 45B of Chapter XIVA KER grants permanent exemption to teachers who have attained the age of 50 years from acquiring the test qualifications specified in sub- rule (1). Similarly, Rule 45BB provides: “Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, every person holding the post of Headmaster in a Lower Primary School or in an Upper Primary School as on the 10th of May 1988 and who has completed 50 years of age or 25 years of service on that date shall be eligible for permanent exemption from acquiring the qualification specified in sub rule (1) of rule 45B. Provided that this exemption shall not adversely affect the claim of a person fully qualified under the rules and eligible for promotion as on 10 th May 1988 on a regular basis.” 11. On the other hand, Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR provides for permanent exemption to Higher Secondary School teachers in Government service and reads: ”Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, persons in Government Service who attained the age of 50 years and who have put in 25 years of service shall be eligible for permanent exemption from passing the obligatory departmental tests, other than those prescribed as qualification in the Special Rules for all purposes such as promotion, appointment as full member of a service etc.” 12. On the strength of the aforesaid provisions, it is contended that while Government teachers and certain categories of aided school teachers enjoy statutory relaxation, the same benefit is denied to Principals of aided Higher Secondary Schools, who stand on an identical footing. Such denial, it is argued, amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is further contended that the omission of a corresponding exemption in Chapter XXXII KER is an inadvertent lacuna. This position, according to the petitioners, stands clarified by the Government Order dated 12.07.2023, whereby it was declared that exemptions under Rule 13B and Rule 21 of Part II KS&SSR shall also apply to persons appointed as Principals in aided schools. Accordingly, it is argued that the said Government Order is clarificatory in nature, intended to cure an obvious omission that existed earlier. By issuing the said order, the Government has merely clarified and implemented its policy, thereby reflecting the true legislative intent. Accordingly, it is argued that the said Government Order is clarificatory in nature, intended to cure an obvious omission that existed earlier. By issuing the said order, the Government has merely clarified and implemented its policy, thereby reflecting the true legislative intent. According to the learned counsel, this declaration amounts to an acknowledgment that both categories are entitled to the same benefit of exemption. 14. In support of the contentions, Sri. Paul Abraham Vakanal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.11715 of 2018, placed reliance on the following decisions: 15. In Pankajaksy and Others v. George Mathew and Others [ 1987 (2) KLT 723 ], this Court observed that Headmasters of Government schools and aided schools discharge substantially identical duties and responsibilities. It was therefore held that uniform qualifications for Headmasters across both categories would be appropriate. Relying on the said principle, the learned counsel contended that the differentiation made between Principals of Government Higher Secondary Schools and Principals of aided Higher Secondary Schools, despite both discharging identical duties, has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Such unequal treatment between two similarly situated classes, it is argued, violates the mandate of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Prasad Verma [ (2017) 5 SCC 665 ], the Apex Court held that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and seeks to remove doubts or correct an obvious omission, would generally operate retrospectively. 17. The learned counsel further relied on M/s. Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1226], wherein the Apex Court held that the retrospectivity of a statute must be tested on the touchstone of the doctrine of “fairness”. It was further observed that the essence of beneficial legislation lies in ensuring that the benefit conferred is uniform and effective. While such legislation may ordinarily operate prospectively, where the extension of the benefit retrospectively does not impose any undue burden on others, a purposive interpretation permitting retrospective operation would be justified. 18. It was further observed that the essence of beneficial legislation lies in ensuring that the benefit conferred is uniform and effective. While such legislation may ordinarily operate prospectively, where the extension of the benefit retrospectively does not impose any undue burden on others, a purposive interpretation permitting retrospective operation would be justified. 18. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others [ (1998) 6 SCC 674 ], wherein it was held: “When the Government declared the school as a minority school, it has recognised a factual position that the school was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration.” Placing reliance on the above dictum, the learned counsel contended that the Government Order dated 12.07.2023 does not create any new right, but merely recognises and affirms a legal position that already existed. 19. Applying the above principles, the Government Order dated 12.07.2023 does not confer any new right or impose any new obligation. It merely clarifies what was always intended, namely, that persons who have attained the age of 50 years and are appointed as Principals in aided schools are entitled to the same exemption from obligatory departmental tests as similarly situated teachers in Government service. 20. On the factual aspects, the petitioner’s promotion as Principal was duly approved by the competent authority. Her probation was declared, and annual increments were sanctioned from 2013 to 2016, thereby treating her as a regular Principal. This conduct on the part of the authorities gives rise to a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner. 21. During the period of probation, the petitioner attained the age of 50 years. Accordingly, the exemption was rightly extended by the Regional Deputy Director, and her probation was declared, followed by grant of increments up to 2016. In such circumstances, the subsequent attempt to deny further benefits on the ground of non-acquisition of test qualifications cannot be sustained, particularly in light of the clarification issued by the Government in 2023. 22. Accordingly, the exemption was rightly extended by the Regional Deputy Director, and her probation was declared, followed by grant of increments up to 2016. In such circumstances, the subsequent attempt to deny further benefits on the ground of non-acquisition of test qualifications cannot be sustained, particularly in light of the clarification issued by the Government in 2023. 22. Once probation has been declared and monetary benefits such as salary and increments have been granted, any belated attempt by the authorities to revisit the issue on the ground of non-passing of departmental tests would unfairly affect the petitioner’s accrued service benefits, including pensionary benefits. Such action would be contrary to the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, which restrain the State from taking a position that defeats benefits already conferred and acted upon. 23. The learned counsel further contended that the “sit-back theory” would also apply in favour of the petitioner. Having been granted promotion, approval, declaration of probation, and increments, her position in service had attained finality, and she was entitled to regulate her affairs on the legitimate belief that her eligibility had been fully accepted by the department. 24. It is also pointed out that although the petitioner had attempted to resign from the post of Principal, the same was not accepted, and she was permitted to continue and retire from service as Principal. In such circumstances, denial of benefits, which are otherwise extended to similarly situated Principals in Government service, would amount to discrimination and would also offend the principles of natural justice. Further, it is submitted that none of the representations preferred by the petitioner before the Regional Deputy Director or the Government have been considered or disposed of. 25. Similarly, Sri. Paulson Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6969 of 2021, contended that the petitioner therein is also entitled to exemption from test qualifications upon attaining the age of 50 years, as provided under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR. It is argued that the denial of such exemption would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 26. It is argued that the denial of such exemption would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 26. It is submitted that, in the case of Government Higher Secondary School teachers who are promoted as Principals, notwithstanding the prescription of test qualifications under Rule 8 of the Special Rules, they are granted permanent exemption from passing such tests upon attaining the age of 50 years in terms of Rule 13B of the General Rules in KS&SSR. 27. The learned counsel further contended that in M.M. Dolichan and Others v. State of Kerala [ (2001) 1 SCC 151 ], the Apex Court laid down certain principles pursuant to which the Government framed recruitment rules for Government Higher Secondary Schools under the Kerala Public Service Act by issuing the Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service Rules, as per G.O.(P) No.144/2001/Gen.Edn. dated 16.04.2001. However, while framing the rules under the Kerala Education Act by exercising powers under Section 36, an omission occurred on the part of the Government. 28. Subsequently, as a result of various litigation, Chapter XXXII was introduced in the Kerala Education Rules to regulate service conditions in the Higher Secondary sector. The said Chapter substantially adopts the provisions of the Special Rules applicable to Government Higher Secondary School teachers. Accordingly, the test qualification prescribed under Rule 8 of the Special Rules was incorporated as Rule 9 in Chapter XXXII KER. However, the corresponding exemption available to Government school teachers under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR was not incorporated in Chapter XXXII KER. This omission, according to the learned counsel, can only be construed as inadvertent, particularly in the absence of any discernible reason for denying such exemption to Principals in aided schools. 29. It is further contended that both Government Higher Secondary Schools and aided Higher Secondary Schools are established under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. Government schools fall under Section 3(3)(a), while aided schools fall under Section 3(3)(b) of the Act. The object of establishment in both cases is identical, namely, imparting education. The curriculum and academic standards in both sectors are also the same. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Government to prescribe qualifications for appointment of teachers in both Government and aided schools. 30. Thus, no valid distinction can be drawn between the two categories of service. The object of establishment in both cases is identical, namely, imparting education. The curriculum and academic standards in both sectors are also the same. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Government to prescribe qualifications for appointment of teachers in both Government and aided schools. 30. Thus, no valid distinction can be drawn between the two categories of service. The only difference lies in the method of recruitment: Government school teachers are governed by the Kerala Public Service Act and the Special Rules framed thereunder, whereas aided school teachers are governed by rules framed under Section 36 of the Kerala Education Act. However, such distinction in the source of recruitment does not justify differential treatment in matters of service conditions. 31. The qualifications prescribed, duties performed, pay scales, and nomenclature of posts are identical in both sectors. Therefore, exclusion of aided school Principals from the benefit of permanent exemption from test qualifications lacks any rational basis. It amounts to a case of under-inclusion and is consequently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any intelligible differentia, the denial of exemption to aided school Principals cannot be sustained. 32. It was further contended, relying on various decisions of this Court, that aided school teachers are to be treated at par with Government school teachers. It is also a settled principle of law that there must be equal pay for equal work; failing which, the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India would stand violated. 33. Though the immediate claim is for parity in respect of exemption from test qualifications, the direct and inevitable consequence of denial of such exemption affects the pay and salary of aided school teachers. As a result, Principals in aided schools, who discharge functions identical to those of their counterparts in Government schools, would be placed at a disadvantage in terms of service benefits, thereby defeating the principle of equal pay for equal work. 34. It is further pointed out that exemption from test qualifications is provided to teachers at the High School level, Upper Primary level, and even at the Primary level in aided institutions. However, a distinction is drawn between Principals serving in the aided sector and those in the Government sector, without assigning any intelligible differentia for such differential treatment. 34. It is further pointed out that exemption from test qualifications is provided to teachers at the High School level, Upper Primary level, and even at the Primary level in aided institutions. However, a distinction is drawn between Principals serving in the aided sector and those in the Government sector, without assigning any intelligible differentia for such differential treatment. Such classification, in the absence of any rational basis, is arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law. 35. Rule 13B of KS&SSR provides exemption to the stipulations in Rule 8 of the Special Rules, whereas it does not provide any such exemption to the prescriptions under Rule 9 of Chapter XXXII KER though Rule 9 is adopted from Rule 8 of Special rules. 36. In the factual matrix, the petitioner’s probation ought to have been declared with effect from 25.08.2017, upon completion of the requisite period of two years. The petitioner had, in fact, attained the age of 50 years on 22.05.2017. However, on account of the discrimination faced by aided school Principals due to an inadvertent omission in the framing of the rules, the benefit of parity was denied to the petitioner. 37. Subsequently, by G.O.(P) No.9/2023/Gen. Edn. dated 12.07.2023, the Government clarified that Principals of aided Higher Secondary Schools are also entitled to exemption from test qualifications, on par with Principals of Government Higher Secondary Schools, as provided under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR. The said Government Order further extended the benefit of extension of probation, as applicable to Principals in Government service under Rule 21 of Part II KS&SSR, to Principals in aided schools as well, with a view to eliminate discrimination between employees belonging to the same category in the Government and aided sectors. 38. By issuing the said Government Order, the Government has sought to cure the defect in the rules and to remove the anomaly, thereby supplementing the existing provisions so as to avoid discrimination meted out to aided school teachers vis-à-vis their counterparts in Government schools. In such circumstances, the said Government Order cannot be treated as having only prospective effect, as it is a settled principle that curative or clarificatory amendments operate retrospectively. 39. Any other interpretation would result in discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the said Government Order cannot be treated as having only prospective effect, as it is a settled principle that curative or clarificatory amendments operate retrospectively. 39. Any other interpretation would result in discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The language employed in the Government Order itself indicates the legislative intent, as it specifically states that necessary amendments to the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules will be carried out in tune with the said order. 40. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, by a subsequent Government Order dated 10.02.2024, namely G.O.(P) No.7/2024/Gen.Edn., the condition of 25 years of service, which was inadvertently included in the earlier Government Order dated 12.07.2023, was deleted. Consequently, the requirement of completion of 25 years of service no longer subsists. Accordingly, all Principals of aided Higher Secondary Schools are entitled to permanent exemption from test qualifications upon attaining the age of 50 years. 41. It is contended that omissions on the part of the Government or its departments cannot result in differential treatment or create artificial distinctions among persons holding identical posts, possessing the same qualifications, and drawing the same pay. 42. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6969 of 2021 placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Pradesh State Recognised and Aided School Managing Committee [1995 KHC 1198 (SC)], wherein it was held that teachers in aided schools are entitled to parity with their counterparts in Government schools in matters relating to salary, allowances, and other service benefits. 43. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Mini Venugopal v. State of Kerala [2011 (4) KHC 860] , wherein it was held that exclusion of aided school service for the purpose of reckoning the 10 years’ service required for exemption from SET, as provided under Rule 9(4) of the Special Rules for the Kerala Higher Secondary Education Service, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that service in aided schools can be reckoned along with Government service for the purpose of granting such exemption. While rendering the said decision, this Court had also relied on the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh (supra). 44. It was further held that service in aided schools can be reckoned along with Government service for the purpose of granting such exemption. While rendering the said decision, this Court had also relied on the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh (supra). 44. On the strength of the above decisions, it is contended that there is no rational or intelligible differentia in excluding aided school teachers from the benefit of exemption from test qualifications granted under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR. The subsequent issuance of G.O.(P) No.7/2024/Gen. Edn. dated 10.02.2024, it is submitted, is only a step taken by the Government to remove the anomaly and bring the aided school Principals at par with their counterparts in Government service. 45. On the other hand, Smt. Mable C. Kurian, learned Government Pleader, contended on the basis of the counter affidavit and statement that the petitioner in WP(C) No.11715 of 2018 has not completed 25 years of service as contemplated under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR. It was further contended that the petitioner in WP(C) No.6969 of 2021 has not completed the requisite 12 years of service as prescribed under Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules. 46. Apart from the above, the principal contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader relates to the effect of retrospectivity of the clarification issued by the Government. It is submitted that, even as on date, Rule 9 of Chapter XXXII KER remains unamended. Consequently, the requirement of passing the prescribed departmental tests for Principals of Higher Secondary Schools continues to be in force.In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Venugopalan H. v. District Educational Officer, Palakkad [2025 KHC Online 258]. In the said case, the issue pertained to the requirement of a minimum of 12 years’ teaching experience and the passing of certain departmental tests, wherein exemption was introduced by the Government with retrospective effect from April 2011. 47. In the said case, the issue pertained to the requirement of a minimum of 12 years’ teaching experience and the passing of certain departmental tests, wherein exemption was introduced by the Government with retrospective effect from April 2011. 47. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Rajamohanan K. v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (3) KHC 76 ], rendered while answering a reference on the following issues: (1) Whether the Government Order dated 10.06.2015, which provides that even though teachers who have attained the age of 50 years are exempted from acquiring test qualifications, preference shall be given to test-qualified teachers under the same management for appointment as Headmasters, is valid; and (2) Whether the benefit of permanent exemption from acquiring test qualifications, as provided under the second proviso to Rule 44A(1) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, can be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the third proviso to Rule 44A(1). “…............if an exemption granted to a teacher, who completed the age of 50 years is understood as a concession extended to him, according to us, even while we hold that such exepmtions are enforceable, depriving of the same retrospectively would not violate any of his/her constitutional rights. If that be so, retrospectivity given to the 3 rd proviso to rule 44(1) is perfectly in order. We take this view also in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Pankajaksy , that suspension of provision in the nature of 2 nd proviso to rule 44A (1) beyond the reasonable time, is not only arbitrary and unreasonable, but also not one contemplated by the Act. Question (ii) in circumstances, is answered in affirmative.” It is further held, relying on the decision in Harifa Beevi Kallan, that: “The right accrued in favour of a teacher who has completed the age of 50 years to claim appointment as Headmaster in terms of the second proviso to Rule 44A(1) cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the third proviso.” 48. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the decision in Pankajaksy (supra), wherein this Court considered the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding the grant of exemption. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the decision in Pankajaksy (supra), wherein this Court considered the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding the grant of exemption. The Court observed that the question as to whether the period of exemption should be extended from eight years to ten years is a matter falling within the domain of the Government, and that the Court cannot ordinarily sit in judgment over the wisdom of such policy decisions. It was further observed as follows: “On the reasoning given above, we are inclined to hold that the exemption granted beyond the initial period of two years, namely, an additional period of six years to aided and recognised schools alone, cannot be supported. However, in view of the fact that this exemption has been in force for a long time without challenge, and as there may be many persons who have already obtained the benefit who are not parties before us, we are of the view that it would not be advisable at this stage to strike down the entire exemption granted after 1980 behind the back of such affected persons, whose number cannot even be estimated. We also do not propose to go beyond the pleadings and the reliefs sought in the original petition to strike down the extension of exemption from 1980 onwards. We are thus in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge, though for slightly different reasons.” 49. Similarly, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision in Harrisons Malayalam Limited (M/s.) v. State of Kerala [2026 KHC Online 215], wherein this Court, following the dictum laid down in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2011) 7 SCC 639 ], considered the question as to whether a court, while entertaining a writ petition, is obliged to grant reliefs not founded on the pleadings. 50. It was held that reliefs not based on the pleadings ought not to be granted, and that a case cannot be decided on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. It was further observed that if any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the Court should refrain from deciding the same, as the opposite party would not have had a fair opportunity to meet such a case. 51. It was further observed that if any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the Court should refrain from deciding the same, as the opposite party would not have had a fair opportunity to meet such a case. 51. The said contention is raised in the context of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions, namely, to quash Ext.P2, to declare that the petitioner is exempted from passing the obligatory departmental test as envisaged under Rule 9 of Chapter XXXII KER, and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to disburse all consequential service benefits, including annual increments and arrears. According to the learned Government Pleader, since the petitioner has already retired from service, these issues do not survive for consideration at this stage. 52. The learned Government Pleader relied on the decision in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr.Manu [ 2023 KHC Online 6578], which gives the clarification with respect to the applicability of the Government Order subsequently modified by another order. The apex court has clarified that: (1) if a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retroactive operation thereof may be permitted. (2) In order for a subsequent order/ provision/ amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that amendment is considered to be clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore, applied retrospectively. (3) An explanation / clarification may not expand or alter the scope of original provision. (4) Merely because a provision is described as a clarification/explanation, the court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively. 53. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to first address the primary issue raised in these writ petitions. 53. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to first address the primary issue raised in these writ petitions. Neither in the counter affidavit/statement nor in the submissions of the learned Government Pleader is it discernible that any intelligible differentia exists to distinguish the service rendered by Higher Secondary School teachers in the Government sector from that in the aided sector. 54. Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules was introduced in the aftermath of various litigations to regulate service conditions in the Higher Secondary sector. A perusal of the Special Rules governing Government Higher Secondary School teachers, framed under the Kerala Public Service Act, does not reveal any distinction with respect to the nature of the post, duties attached thereto, or the scale of pay, when compared with the provisions contained in Chapter XXXII KER. 55. On a closer examination, it is evident that Chapter XXXII has substantially adopted the provisions of the Special Rules. In fact, Rule 8 of the Special Rules, which prescribes test qualifications for Government Higher Secondary School teachers, is in pari materia with Rule 9 of Chapter XXXII KER. However, while an exemption is provided to Government teachers under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR, no corresponding provision is found in Chapter XXXII KER. 56. On a consideration of the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, Section 3(3)(a) relates to Government schools, whereas Section 3(3)(b) pertains to aided schools. The purpose of establishing institutions under both sectors is identical, namely, the imparting of education. The curriculum and other academic aspects in both sectors are also the same. Further, Section 10 of the Act empowers the Government to prescribe the qualifications for appointment of teachers in both Government and private schools. 57. Thus, it is evident that the duties to be performed in both sectors are intended to achieve the common objective of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The only distinction that can be pointed out is with respect to the method of appointment. However, no contention has been advanced by the Government to justify any distinction or to establish an intelligible differentia between the two categories of teachers. 58. The only distinction that can be pointed out is with respect to the method of appointment. However, no contention has been advanced by the Government to justify any distinction or to establish an intelligible differentia between the two categories of teachers. 58. While the recruitment of teachers in the Government sector is governed by the Special Rules for Higher Secondary School Teachers framed under the Kerala Public Service Act, the recruitment of teachers in aided schools is governed by rules framed under Section 36 of the Kerala Education Act. This, however, is the sole distinguishing feature in respect of their appointment, and cannot form a valid basis for differential treatment in service conditions. 59. Though initially no exemption was provided under Chapter XXXII KER, the Government, by issuing the Government Order dated 12.07.2023, clarified that the exemptions under Rule 13B and Rule 21 of Part II KS&SSR shall also apply to persons appointed as Principals in aided schools. However, an inadvertent omission occurred in the said Government Order insofar as it retained the condition of 25 years of service. 60. This omission was subsequently rectified by issuing G.O.(P) No.7/2024/Gen. Edn. dated 10.02.2024, whereby the condition of 25 years of service was deleted, it having been mistakenly incorporated in the earlier Government Order dated 12.07.2023 without noticing the amendment to Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR. It is pertinent to note that Rule 13B had already been amended by G.O.(P) No.2/2022/P&ARD dated 15.01.2022 (SRO 124/2022), deleting the requirement of 25 years of service. Even prior to that, executive orders, including G.O.(MS) No.282/81/GAD, had effectively done away with the said requirement. 61. Thus, it is evident that, from as early as 1981, the condition of 25 years of service was not operative insofar as Rule 13B is concerned, which governs exemption from test qualifications for Government Higher Secondary School Principals. In that view of the matter, the Government Orders dated 12.07.2023 and 10.02.2024 are clearly curative in nature. 62. A reading of the Government Order dated 12.07.2023 further indicates that consequential amendments to the Kerala Education Rules were intended to be carried out in tune with the said order. In such circumstances, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (supra) squarely applies, namely, that if a provision is curative or merely clarificatory of the existing law, it may be given retrospective effect. 63. In such circumstances, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (supra) squarely applies, namely, that if a provision is curative or merely clarificatory of the existing law, it may be given retrospective effect. 63. Mere delay in formally amending the statutory provisions, attributable to administrative inaction, cannot operate to the prejudice of the petitioners. They cannot be denied the benefit of exemption which has long been available to their counterparts in Government service. 64. Moreover, in several decisions, this Court as well as the Apex Court have considered the issue of parity between teachers in the Government sector and those in the aided sector. Pragmatically, no distinction can be drawn with respect to the object of appointment of teachers in these two sectors, as Higher Secondary Schools in both the aided and Government sectors are established under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, particularly Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b). The qualifications prescribed for appointment are identical, and there is no difference in the curriculum or academic responsibilities in either sector. 65. In such circumstances, no intelligible differentia can be discerned in treating teachers in the aided sector differently from those in the Government sector. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader. In order to answer the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader on the strength of Harrisons Malayalam Limited (M/s.) (Supra) and in Narmada Bachao Andolan (Supra) with respect to the reliefs granted outside the purview of pleadings need not be considered since the reliefs granted in these writ petitions are perfectly within the ambit of prayers and pleadings sought. 66. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that, in the absence of any intelligible differentia, teachers in the aided sector are entitled to the benefit of exemption from passing departmental tests as provided under Rule 13B of Part II KS&SSR, on par with their counterparts in Government service. The competent authorities are directed to pass consequential orders and to extend all attendant service benefits, including monetary benefits, to the petitioners within a reasonable time.