Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. At the admission stage, learned counsel for the 1st respondent took notice and we therefore heard both the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Since the Manager is supporting the 1st respondent, which was done in the original side also, we do not think there is any need to issue notice to the Manager. Accordingly, we proceed to consider and dispose of the case at the admission stage itself.

2. When a vacancy arose on account of promotion of a Natural Science teacher as Headmistress, the 2nd respondent appointed the 1st respondent, who is an English teacher, following Rule 6.I of Chapter XXIII of KER, which provides for appointment of English teachers in a phased manner without retrenching teachers in core subjects previously teaching English. When the appointment of the 1st respondent was considered for approval, the DEO declined the same for the reason that the 2nd respondent School had two retrenched teachers, one in Mathematics and the other in Social Studies, who are remaining deployed in other Schools. Since the appeal and revision filed against refusal to approve appointment failed, the 1st respondent filed WP (C) before the learned Single Judge contending that under the GO referred therein (Ext.P14), an English teacher should be appointed by the Management irrespective of whether there is protected teacher in other subjects or not. The 1st respondent also relied on another Government Order, namely Ext.P14, issued by the Government in another case approving appointment of a teacher appointed in English when that School had two protected teachers in other subjects who were eligible to teach English. The learned Single Judge allowed the WP(C) by vacating orders issued by the statutory authorities and directed approval of appointment of the 1st respondent with effect from the date of appointment i.e. 04/06/2007. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed by the State.

3. The short question to be considered is whether the 1st respondent's appointment as an English teacher in the vacancy that arose on 04/06/2007 could be justified with reference to Rule 6.I of Chapter XXIII, which is extracted hereunder:-

"6.I Sanctioning of posts of High School Assistant (English): Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rule in this Chapter the post of High School Assistant (English) shall be sanctioned on the basis of the periods allocated to English, observing minimum subject requirement.

Note :- Subject to any general order that may be issued by the Government, the above rule shall be implemented in a phased manner without causing retrenchment of existing High School Assistants (core subjects) as on 7th January 2002, and observing the minimum subject requirement."

4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the above Rule has to be read along with GO(MS) No.104/69/Edn. dated 06/03/1969, wherein the Government specifically states as follows:-

"The retrenched teacher will be absorbed in the next vacancy arising in any of the aided schools under the management by whom he was appointed. The Controlling Officers will not approve any new appointments in the Schools under these managements until and unless the retrenched hands are absorbed first."

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that Rule 6.I above referred specifically provides for introducing qualified English teachers in retiring vacancies and the object of the Rule will be achieved only when teachers in other subjects teaching English are substituted on retirement by English teachers. Heavy reliance is also placed on Ext.P14 order issued by the Government, which is in the same context, in which an English teacher's appointment was approved when the School had two retrenched teachers deployed on protection basis in other Schools who were eligible to teach English.

6. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that Rule 6.I is not an absolute R