ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. A Division Bench, by order dated 21.06.2012, in the aforesaid writ petitions noted an apparent conflict between the decisions rendered by two earlier Division Benches, i.e. Abdurahiman vs. Government of Kerala, 2009 (2) KLT 105 and Maya vs. State of Kerala 2010 (2) KLT 99. Paragraph 5 of the reference order dated 21.06.2012 reads as follows:-

"5. In paragraph 14 of Abdurahiman vs. Government of Kerala, 2009 (2) KLT 105, the Division Bench specifically dealt with the impact of the amendments and held that rights already accrued could not be deprived. Later, in Maya vs. State of Kerala, 2010 (2) KLT 99, the Division Bench appears to have taken a contrary view. This is evident from paragraph 2 of Maya's case. The apparent conflict among those Bench decisions is not reconcilable by the Division Bench interpreting the Rules, though prima facie, we see substance in the rights of teachers who had enjoyed approved service for shorter than one year before the amendment. We also see that the right to such appointment against one category would have got enlarged to be available as against the different categories of teachers as a result of the amendment. These m