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 matters also need a deeper look. But, the conflict between the judgments noted above prompts us to refer these cases to the Full Bench. In the aforesaid situation, we refer these cases to the Full Bench."

2. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the above reference order. Before we proceed to consider the issues which have arisen before the Full Bench, it is sufficient to notice the element of facts giving rise to the writ petitions. It would be sufficient to note the facts in W.P. (C) No. 24773 of 2009 to answer the reference.

3. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 24773 of 2009 was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant on 31.08.2006 on a vacancy caused due to the promotion of one Smt. Geetha as High School Assistant. The District Educational Officer has refused to grant approval to the said appointment by letter dated 16.12.2006 on the ground that there is a claimant under Rule 51A i.e. 6th respondent to the writ petition, Smt. Anitha Thankam. The appeal preferred by the Manager was also rejected by the District Educational Officer by order dated 05.06.2007. Smt. Anitha Thankam filed W.P. (C) No. 1911 of 2007 which was disposed of on 17.01.2007 directing the District Educational officer to consider the claim and take a decision. The District Educational Officer again passed an order dated 28.03.2007 directing the Manager to appoint Smt. Anitha Thankam as Upper Primary School Assistant. But that order was challenged in W.P. (C) No. 17269 of 2007 by the petitioner and in pursuance of the directions in the judgment the District Educational Officer passed an order dated 24.09.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and upholding the claim of Smt. Anitha Thankam. The appeal filed against the order dated 24.09.2007 was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education by passing an order dated 10.01.2008. Thus Ext.P6 order was passed terminating the petitioner from service and appointing Smt. Anitha Thankam. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Director of Public Instruction. The Manager has issued an order dated 15.03.2008 appointing Smt. Anitha Thankam. A Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner before the Government, which was dismissed by the Government by order dated 13.08.2009 (Ext.P13). The petitioner filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

"(a) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P4, P5, P6, P8 and P13 orders and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2006 onwards."

4. The writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who after doubting t