1. The petitioner challenges the retrospectivity given to an amendment introduced in the Kerala Education Rules by Ext.P9 dated 3.4.2003. By the said amendment, a rival claimant became eligible for appointment as High School Assistant. The petitioner apprehends that the said eligibility acquired by the 3rd respondent may affect her claim for approval of her appointment. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. The petitioner is presently working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in St. Mary's High School, Vynthala managed by the 4th respondent. She was appointed as HSA (Malayalam) in this School in a leave vacancy by Ext.P3 order dated 12.8.1999. The appointment was for a period extending from 12.8.1999 to 15.10.1999. That was approved by the D.E.O. She was reappointed in a leave vacancy of HSA (Malayalam) from 11.1.2000 to 15.3.2000 by Ext.P4. The said appointment was also approved. The petitioner was again appointed in a leave vacancy from 19.9.2000 to 18.9.2002. The said appointment was also approved as evident from Ext.P6 appointment order. The approval of appointment was restricted upto 14.7.2001. The petitioner submits, feeling aggrieved by the approval being restricted upto 14.7.2001 instead of granting upto 18.9.2002, she has preferred a revision before the Government and the same is pending. While so, as a result of retirement of a senior HSA (Malayalam), a vacancy arose from 1.4.2002. The petitioner was reappointed in that vacancy by Ext.P7 order with effect from 5.6.2002. The said appointment is yet to be approved.

3. While the above appointments and their approvals were taking place, the 3rd respondent in this Writ Petition was trying to get promotion as HSA (Malayalam). She was staking her claim for promotion even before the first appointment of the petitioner. She is an UPSA qualified to be appointed as HSA (Natural Science). While in service, she acquired M.A. in Malayalam in the year 1996. Ever since her acquisition of the said Post-graduate Degree in Malayalam, she was staking her claim for appointment as HSA (Malayalam) on the strength of Ext.P8 Government order dated 22.8.1987. The said order provided that a Post-graduate in the concerned subject/ language even though he may not be a graduate in that subject/language is eligible to be appointed as HSA (Subject) or HSA (Language). One Smt. P.Sindhu was appointed as HSA (Malayalam) in a retirement vacancy on 19.6.61995. Though one post of HSA (Malayalam) was reduced during the academic year 1996-97, she was retained in the School on the strength of the Government orders dated 16.7.1999 and 29.9.1999. With effect from 1.6.1999 a leave vacancy of HSA (Natural Science) and a retirement vacancy of HSA (Malayalam) arose. The said Smt. P.Sindhu was accommodated as HSA (Malayalam) by Ext.P1 order and the 3rd respondent was appointed as HSA (Natural Science) as per Ext.P2. Both the appointments were approved. Subsequently, a vacancy arose in which the petitioner was accommodated as HSA (Malayalam) . The 3rd respondent ever since the acquisition of qualification of M.A. (Malayalam) was objecting to the appointment made to the post of HSA (Malayalam). But those motions were rejected by the competent authorities, submits the petitioner. It is also submitted that one of those orders, Ext.P5, issued by the DEO is under challenge before this Court in O.P. No.5099/2001. It is also submitted that O.P. No.32623/2001 filed by the petitioner and the Manager challenging the validity of Ext.P8 is pending before this Court. While so, the Government amended the Rules in tune with Ext.P8 by issuing Ext.P9 on 3.4.2003. Ext.P9 is given retrospective effect from 22.8.1987, which is the date of Ext.P8 Executive order. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the retrospectivity given to Ext.P9. The petitioner apprehends that the retrospectivity will affect her rights.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents