Ramachandran Nair, J:

1. The question raised in the connected appeals is one and the same. Therefore we heard both the cases together and proceed to dispose the same by this common judgment. Parties arrayed and documents referred to are those in W.A No.978/2012. The 1st respondent in the writ appeal was appointed by the 6th respondent in their school in an additional division vacancy on regular basis on 12-07-2004. Even though appointment was on regular basis on monthly pay the educational authorities declined to approve the appointment for the reason that Ext.R6(b) Government order dated 15-06-2004 prohibits appointment of teachers for less than one academic year on a regular basis and the Government order permits such appointment on daily wage basis only. After the 1st respondent's appointment was approved by the Government on daily wage basis, a vacancy arose on 02-06-2008 which was filled up by the Manager. This was questioned by the 1st respondent in this court contending that he is entitled to priority in appointment based on Rule 51A Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules which was accepted by the learned single Judge declaring that the 1st respondent was entitled to be appointed to the regular vacancy which arose on 02-06-2008 by virtue of his claim under Rule 51A. As a consequence of this finding, the learned single Judge found that appellant's appointment was irregular and so much so, the same cannot be approved. It is against the judgment of the learned single Judge both the aggrieved teacher namely appellant in WA No.978/2012 and the Management have filed separate writ appeals.

2. Before us counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the Management heavily relied on Ext.R6(b) Government order which states that for Rule 51A claim the teacher appointed on temporary basis should have a service of minimum one academic year, which 1st respondent did not have. However, the 1st respondent's counsel submitted that Clause 6 of Ext.R6 (b) was only a policy decision of the Government notified in advance but its implementation was subject to amendment of Rule 51A, which was done by the Government only with effect from 27-04-2005 and not retrospectively. After hearing counsel appearing for both sides and also Government Pleader, we do not think the entitlement of the 1st respondent for appointment under Rule 51A depends on whether the temporary appointment given to him is on a daily wage or on monthly wages because what is required to be considered is the scope of Rule 51A prior to and after the amendment and the impact of Ext.R6(b) Government order on the application of Rule 51A. Since the appellants in both the writ appeals one the aggrieved teacher and the other the Manager rely on clause 6 of Ext.R6 (b), we have to necessarily refer to it along with clause 7 heavily relied on by the appellants. Clauses 6 & 7 of Ext.R6 (b) are extracted hereunder.

"6. Hereafter the claim for re-appointment under rule 51A of the KER will be limited to those who have been appointed against regular/leave vacancies having a duration of not less than one academic year. The vacancies having during less than one academic year will be filled up on daily wage basis.

7. In order to give effect to para 6 above, necessary amendments will be made forthwith to Rule 7 (3) Chapter XIV A and Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER for which the Director of Public Instruction will forward proposals to Government urgently."

3. From clause 6 what is clear is that the Government wanted to limit the scope of 51A by disallowing the benefit to teachers employed for less than one academic year. In other words 51A claim as contemplated by the Government vide Ext.R6 (b) is only for teachers who have a continuous period of service of not less than one academic year. The question therefore is whether Ext.R6 (b) can be implemented or whether the said Government decision contained in Ext.R6 (b) will be effective only through amendment in Rule 51A. The legal position e