IMPORTANT POINTS:
• The service of every aided Higher Secondary School is directed to consist of all or any of the categories of posts mentioned therein “as the Director may sanction”. Therefore, the authority to sanction posts, going by rule 3 above is the Director of Higher Secondary Education
• The upgradation has to depend on increase in the workload of a teacher beyond 15 periods, it cannot be said that upgradation is a matter of policy of the Government. The policy of the Government would end when posts are sanctioned by it-Upgradation would have to depend on the parameters contained in Chapter XXXII KER.

Surendra Mohan, J.

These Writ appeals are filed by the State challenging judgments of Single Judges allowing a number of Writ Petitions filed by Higher Secondary School Teachers. As per the judgments appealed against, the teachers have been directed to be approved as Higher Secondary School Teachers from the beginning of the academic year 2011-12 onwards. Since common questions arise for consideration in all the appeals, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. As per a Government order dated 20.07.2010, sanction was accorded to start 178 new Higher Secondary Schools in aided and Government sectors in Thrissur District and six districts of Malabar area from the academic year 2010-11 onwards. As per the said Government Order, with the object of commencing classes during 2010-11 academic year itself, sanction was granted for engaging guest lecturers in the newly sanctioned Higher Secondary Schools till regular teaching posts were created. Subsequently, as per a separate Government order dated 24.10.2011, sanction was accorded to create posts of Principals and teachers in 146 aided Higher Secondary Schools with effect from 06.08.2011 (i.e. from the academic year 2010-11) onwards. For the subsequent year, though the posts were required to be upgraded, no orders were issued. Finally, by a Government Order dated 23.02.2013, creation and upgradation of the posts as HSST was ordered but with the rider that the sanction would have only prospective effect. Consequently, the Higher Secondary School teachers who had been working from the year 2010-11 onwards were granted upgradation only from 23.02.2013 onwards. It was challenging the said condition in exhibit P3 that the Writ Petitions were filed before this Court. According to the petitioners, upgradation of the posts should have been with retrospective effect coinciding with the date on which they had qualified to be upgraded in terms of Rule 1(d) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER for short). Therefore, it was contended that limiting the upgradation to the period from 2013 onwards was unjust and liable to be set aside.

3. The Writ Petition was contested by the State, by filing a counter affidavit. According to the counter affidavit, the decision on the question as to whether upgradation should be granted or not was within the realm of the policy of the Government. The teachers had no right to insist on upgradation of the posts to which they had been appointed from any particular date, as sought for by them. It was also pointed out that, since upgradation of the posts involved, financial commitments for the Government, no writ could be issued compelling the Government to grant upgradation from a particular date.

4. W.A.No.724 of 2015 is treated as the leading case insofar as this batch is concerned. We shall therefore, refer to the documents with respect to the said case. In the Original Petition from which the said appeal arises, the learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, found that there was no justification for limiting the upgradation of the posts from an arbitrary date, the date on which exhibit P3 Government Order was issued. Therefore, the said Government Order to the extent to which it limited the upgradation of the posts prospectively from the date of the Government Order has been set aside. The upgradation has been directed to relate back and to apply from the date of the academic year 2011-12 subject to physical verification as to whether the teachers were qualified to hold the posts of HSST in terms of Rule 1(d) of Chapter XXXII of the KER. The said decision has been followed by the Single Benches in the other cases also. The State has come up in appeal against all such decisions.

5. According to the learned Advocate General who has appeared for the appellants, the learned Single Judge has omitted to take note of the fact that upgradation of the posts as HSST would involve financial commit