JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The petitioner is working as Headmistress of L.M.S. Tamil High School, Parassala under the Corporate Management of the 4 th respondent. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order passed by the 2 nd respondent and Ext.P10 order passed by the Government by which, the claim put forward by the petitioner, to appoint her as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School under the management of the 4 th respondent corporate management, was declined and respondents 5 to 7 were appointed against the said vacancies, as per Ext. P12 series of orders. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Under the 4 th respondent, there are three Higher Secondary Schools, namely, (i) L.M.S. H.S.S. Amaravila, (ii)L.M.S. H.S.S. Chemboor and (iii) L.M.S. H.S.S. Vattapara. Three vacancies of 'Principal' in the said schools arose on 30.04.2021 and 31.05.2021. The 4 th respondent issued a Circular on 27.05.2021 inviting applications for the post of 'Principals' of Higher Secondary Schools. 3. According to the petitioner, petitioner being the Headmistress of the High School under the 4 th respondent management, is entitled to be appointed as 'Principal' against one of the said vacancies, by way of by transfer appointment as contemplated under Chapter XXXII, Rule 4 of Kerala Education Rules( KER ). The said provision contemplates for a ratio of 2:1, between the Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers and Headmasters of Aided High Schools under the same management, for appointment of Principals. However, the claim made by the petitioner in this regard was rejected by the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P4 order, on the reason that, there is no vacancy available in Higher Secondary Department, for the subject of the petitioner, i.e., Hindi, and hence, the petitioner cannot be appointed as the Principal. Against the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 appeal before the Government and the said appeal was directed to be disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court, within a time frame. In Ext.P6, this Court directed the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner, after taking note of the principles laid down by this Court in Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2013 (4) KLT 257 ]. 4. The Government, after hearing all the parties concerned, passed Ext.P10 order, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner as well as her claim. In Ext.P6, this Court directed the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner, after taking note of the principles laid down by this Court in Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2013 (4) KLT 257 ]. 4. The Government, after hearing all the parties concerned, passed Ext.P10 order, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner as well as her claim. The observations made by this Court in Thomas 's case (supra) were not made applicable to the petitioner, by relying upon Ext.P11 Government Order passed on 03.05.2023, wherein, it is specifically stipulated that, unless the subject of the incumbent is available in the Higher Secondary section, the Principal post cannot be filled up with the said person. Thus, as per Ext.P10, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Respondents 5 to 7 are the persons who were appointed against the vacancies which arose on 30.04.2021 and 31.05.2021. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the said orders and also seeking a direction to the 4 th respondent, to appoint the petitioner as the 'Principal' of one of the Higher Secondary Schools, with effect from 24.06.2021. 5. A counter affidavit is submitted on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, where the contentions raised by the petitioner are seriously disputed and the reliefs are objected. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the 1 st , 4 th and 5 th respondents. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit in response to the averments contained therein. 6. Heard Sri S.Vishnu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Binoy Davis, the learned Government Pleader, Sri Arun.B Varghese, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and Sri M.R.Anison, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No 5. 7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as far as the issue raised by the petitioner is concerned, the same is already decided in Thomas 's case (supra), in favour of the petitioner. 7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as far as the issue raised by the petitioner is concerned, the same is already decided in Thomas 's case (supra), in favour of the petitioner. It is pointed out that, the denial of appointment to the post of 'Principal' for want of vacancy in the concerned subject, in Higher Secondary section of the school was the subject matter in Thomas 's case and after elaborately considering all the relevant statutory provisions, Government orders and other matters, a Division Bench of this Court categorically observed in the said decision that, the fact that the vacancy in the subject of the incumbent for the post of Principal is not available, cannot be a reason to deny the appointment. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the attention of this Court, a series of judgments, i.e., W.P.(C) No.19948/2013, V.P. Jayaraj v. State of Kerala , W.P.(C) No. 2255/2023 Anitha A v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) No.21224/ 2020, Jose Idicula v. State of Kerala , W.P.(C) No. 20757/2022, Prasanna.P v. Director of General Education, Higher Secondary Section and others , W.P.(C).No. 43148/2023, Sathi Devi E.V. v. State of Kerala and others and W.P.(C) No. 25167/2021 Rince P Sebastian v. State of Kerala and others , where the principles laid down in Thomas 's case (supra) were followed and reliefs were granted to the respective petitioners. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, all the directions in those judgments were complied with and the respective petitioners were given appointments. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, as far as the Ext.P11 Government Order relied on in Ext.P10 is concerned, the same was issued only on 03.05.2023, and consequential amendments based on the said Government Order in the relevant Rule was notified on 29 th November 2024 only. Since all these vacancies have arisen in the year 2021, and that the amendment carried out based on Ext.P11, does not have any retrospective operation, under no circumstances, the right of the petitioner to get appointment to the post of Principal can be governed by the aforesaid Government Order and the consequential amendment. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, while issuing Ext.P10, the Government committed a serious error and hence an interference is required. 10. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, while issuing Ext.P10, the Government committed a serious error and hence an interference is required. 10. The learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Management supported the Ext.P10 decision, by placing reliance upon the Government Order. The learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent made an attempt to distinguish the observations made in Thomas ’s case (supra) and the other decisions relied on by the petitioner. This submission was made by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent on the ground that, while making the observations, the Division Bench did not consider the relevancy of the workload which fixed by the Government invoking the powers under Section 11 of the Kerala Education Act . Thus, it is contended that, since a specific workload is prescribed for each post, in the absence of such workload in the subject of the Principal, no appointment can be given to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, this aspect was not taken note of by the Division Bench in the judgment of Thomas 's case (supra). 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the aforesaid submission, brought the attention of this Court to the observations made in Paragraph 10 of Thomas 's Case (supra), where the impact of the prescription of 16 hours teaching duty to a Principal as per the Government Order was specifically referred to and found that, that cannot be a ground to deny the appointment to the person entitled as per the ratio, to be appointed as the Principal. 12. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the contentions raised by all the parties concerned. Firstly, it is to be noted that, as far as the right of the Headmaster in the Higher Secondary School to get appointment by way of by transfer, as contemplated under Chapter XXXII, Rule 4 of the KER is concerned, it is clearly decided in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Thomas ’s case (supra). Firstly, it is to be noted that, as far as the right of the Headmaster in the Higher Secondary School to get appointment by way of by transfer, as contemplated under Chapter XXXII, Rule 4 of the KER is concerned, it is clearly decided in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Thomas ’s case (supra). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the said decision, it is clearly laid down by this Court that, the fact that no vacancy in the subject of the incumbent is available in the Higher Secondary section, is not a ground to deny the right of such incumbent to get the appointment as the Principal. The said decision was followed, in subsequent decisions rendered by various Benches of this Court and thus, it is evident that this is a view that is being consistently taken by this Court. It is reported that all those decisions have become final and the directions therein were implemented by giving appointments to the respective parties. 13. As regards the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, relying upon the necessity to have the workload as prescribed in the relevant Government Orders, I am of the view that, the same also cannot be considered in view of the specific observations made by this Court in Thomas 's case (supra). This is because, the concept of workload and the relevance of the same for the purpose of considering the right of an incumbent to the post of 'Principal' in a Higher Secondary School, was specifically dealt with in paragraph 10 of Thomas 's case judgment. It is a fact that, the workload is prescribed by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Kerala Education Act . In paragraph 10 of Thomas's case judgment, it is specifically observed that, prescription of 16 hours teaching duty to a Principal is not as per the Rules and is as per the notifications. It was also observed that, the prescription in a notification cannot render ineffective or whittle down a statutory Rule. It was further observed that, the Government had thought it fit to bring out a notification which provides for retention of the junior most teacher in a supernumerary post, when a Headmaster by transfer is appointed as Principal. It was also observed that, the prescription in a notification cannot render ineffective or whittle down a statutory Rule. It was further observed that, the Government had thought it fit to bring out a notification which provides for retention of the junior most teacher in a supernumerary post, when a Headmaster by transfer is appointed as Principal. Thus, it is evident that, the said aspect was also considered by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, it is not open for this Court to consider the said objection. 14. When it comes to the reasons based on which Ext.P10 order was passed by the Government, it is to be noted that the same is solely by placing reliance upon Ext.P11 Government Order, which was passed on 03.05.2023. The consequential amendment was notified only on 29.11.2024. As per the said amendment in Rule 4 Chapter XXXII, in the table provided therein, against Sl,No.1 in Column (3), after Note (iii), a new entry was inserted which reads as follows. “(iv) Appointment as Principal, Higher Secondary School though by transfer recruitment from Head Masters of Aided High Schools shall not be done where the teaching subject of the Head Master, Aided High Schools is not available in the Higher Secondary Schools to which he is proposed to be appointed and where HSST/HSST Junior with the same teaching subject of the Head Master to be promoted as Principal, are already there in the Higher Secondary Schools.” 15. On carefully going through the contents of Ext.P11 and in amendment that is carried out as per the notification dated 29.11.2024 bearing G.O.(P).No.27/2024/G.Edn, it can be seen that, there is nothing therein to show that, the said provision is having retrospective application. Evidently, the vacancies to which the appointment is sought by the petitioner have arisen on 30.04.2021 and 31.05.2021 and those were prior to the Ext.P11 Government Order and the consequential amendment brought in. Thus, as on the date of occurrence of the vacancies, the law that was applicable was, as laid down by this Court in Thomas ’s case (supra) and other connected cases. Of course, the learned counsel for the management brought to the attention of this Court, the explanatory note in the notification dated 29.11.2024, wherein it is mentioned as follows: “As per G.O.(Ms) No.52/2023/G.Edn. Of course, the learned counsel for the management brought to the attention of this Court, the explanatory note in the notification dated 29.11.2024, wherein it is mentioned as follows: “As per G.O.(Ms) No.52/2023/G.Edn. dated 3 rd May, 2023, Government have issued orders for clarification regarding the requirements to be fulfilled for appointment through by transfer recruitment to the post of Principal, Aided Higher Secondary Schools from the Head Masters of Aided High Schools under the respective educational agency and to make consequential amendment to the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 .” Relying upon the same, it is pointed out that, Ext.P11 Government Order was issued as a clarification regarding the requirements to be fulfilled through by transfer recruitment, for the post of Principal for Aided Higher Secondary Schools, from the Head Masters of Aided High Schools and hence the said provision will have retrospective effect. Thus, it is contended that the said Government Order is applicable to the filling up of the vacancies, which are the subject matter of this writ petition as well. 16. However, it is to be noted that, in the notification dated 29.11.2024, it is specifically mentioned that, the amendment is deemed to have come into force on 3 rd day of May, 2023. Therefore, since the notification itself contains a specific date on which, the said amendment came into force, there is no scope in contending that the same will have an application with retrospective effect, beyond the said date. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the said contention as well. 17. Thus, in the light of the above, the irresistible conclusion possible is that, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Principal with effect from the date of occurrence of any one of the vacancies which arose on 30.04.2021 and 31.05.2021, but without any legally sustainable grounds, the said right was denied. It is discernible from Exts.P4 and P10 that, the only objection raised against the appointment of the petitioner was that the vacancy in the subject of the petitioner is not available in the Higher Secondary Section of the School, as a teacher of the same subject, is teaching in the said school. It is discernible from Exts.P4 and P10 that, the only objection raised against the appointment of the petitioner was that the vacancy in the subject of the petitioner is not available in the Higher Secondary Section of the School, as a teacher of the same subject, is teaching in the said school. However, in the light of the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Thomas 's case (supra), which is being consistently followed by this Court, the same cannot deprive the petitioner from getting the said appointment. It is reported that, as against the vacancies referred to above, the respondents 5 to 7 were appointed and are continuing in the said posts. Based on the interim orders passed by this Court the salary in the posts of Principal were released to them as well. Therefore appropriate orders are to be passed protecting the right of the petitioner by interfering with the orders impugned in this case. After considering all relevant aspects, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P4 and P10, with a direction to the competent officer among 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to consider and pass orders on the question of the appointment of the petitioner, for the purpose of deciding as to the vacancy against which the petitioner has to be appointed. Once the vacancy is identified by the said respondent, after hearing all the affected parties, the said authority shall set aside the appointment already made against that vacancy and the 4 th respondent shall issue an appointment order to the petitioner by cancelling the appointment of the person who was appointed in the said post. It is clarified that while making such appointment, the petitioner will have to be assigned with notional seniority with effect from the date on which, the appointment of the person in whose vacancy the petitioner is being appointed. It is clarified that, the seniority of the petitioner shall be notional without any monetary benefits. No recovery shall be affected from the appointee whose appointment is being cancelled. It is clarified that, the seniority of the petitioner shall be notional without any monetary benefits. No recovery shall be affected from the appointee whose appointment is being cancelled. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2 nd or 3 rd respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing and the same shall be implemented by the 4 th respondent by issued necessary orders within a period of two weeks from the date of service of the order referred to above.