The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective effect of declaratory statutes and amendments, as well as the reliance on previous interpretations and legal principles to determine the impact of the amendment on the qualifications for the post of Headmaster.

Petitioner in O.P.3174 of 1989 is the third respondent in O.P.2333 of 1989. The contest is between the petitioner in O.P.3174 of 1989 and the petitioner in O.P.2333 of 1989.

2. For the sake of convenience, the position of the parties as in O.P.3174 of 1989 is followed in the discussion hereunder: Petitioner is an under graduate teacher whereas the 5th respondent is a graduate with B. Ed, degree. Post of Headmastership fell vacant on 1-4-1988. Fifth respondent had completed five years after acquisition of graduation. But he had not completed five acquisition of B.Ed. Rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules has been amended. After amendment, the qualification prescribed is that one should have five years experience after acquisition of B.Ed, degree. Rule 45 as it stood before amendment is to the effect that when the post of Headmaster of complete U.P.School is vacant or when an incomplete U.R.School becomes a complete U.P.School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the School or Schools under the Educational Agency and if there is a Graduate Teacher with B.Ed, or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching after graduation, he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the senior most undergraduate teacher. It further states that if graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the School or Schools under the same Educational Agency, the senior most Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C or equivalent and T.T.C. qualification may be appointed. Amendment to the above said rule has come into effect on 10-1-1989. In view of the amendment, the position is that one should have five years experience after acquisition of B.Ed, degree.

3. Educational Authority decided in favour of the petitioner. O.P.3174 of 1989 is filed to enforce the decision. O.P.2333 of 1989 is filed challenging the order in favour of the petitioner in O.P.3174 of 1989.

4. The question that arise for consideration is whether Ext. P-2 amendment can be considered restrospective or not. Before the amendment, the question arose whether the five years experience mentioned in Rule 45 should be after graduation or after the acquisition of B.Ed, qualification. In Raghavan v. State of Kerala [1987 (2) K.L.T.942 (F.B.)] a Full Bench of this court held that the five years experience mentioned under Rule 45 is after graduation. It is thereafter that the amendment to Rule 45 has been made. If it is held that Ext. P-2 amendment is retrospective, fifth respondent cannot claim the post of Headmaster as he did not have, five years experience after attaining B.Ed. qualification. In that case, petitioner is entitled to hold the post of Headmaster.

5. As the amendment is for removal of doubts in interpreting Rule 45 of Chapter XIV K.E.R. it can only be construed as retrospective as it is declaratory. Presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. An Act to remove doubts regarding any law or the meaning or effect of any statute is a declaratory one and usually it is retrospective. In Madras Marine & Co. v. State of Madras ( A.I.R.1986 S.C.1760) the Supreme Court has approved what has been stated in Craies Statute Law. It is as follows:

"For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined us an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word 'declared' as well as the word 'enacted' "

While construing a statute as to whether it is retrospective or not it has necessarily to be considered w