- 50. The learned Advocate General raised an objection that in the Writ Petitions, the affected parties, namely, the protected teachers are not made parties and therefore the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. I have answered, on the merits, the contentions raised by the parties. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to consider this contention.

Some thoughts: 51. Rule 5 A of Chapter XIV A provides that qualified teachers who are retrenched in the circumstances mentioned in the rule shall be given preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency or under other Educational Agencies. The source of power for making this rule is from Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act would apply where (a) retrenchment of teachers in any aided school is rendered necessary; (b) such necessity occurs consequent on orders of the Government relating the course of studies of scheme of teaching or of such other matters. In such cases, it shall be competent for the Government or the Manager of an aided school to appoint such teachers in any Government school or aided school, as the case may be. Rule 5 A, Chapter XTV A applies where qualified teachers are retrenched: (a) by the opening of new schools; or (b) consequent on orders of Government relating to the course of studies or scheme of teaching; or (c) due to withdrawal of recognition of the school for any of the reasons specified in Rules 22, 22A or 23 of Chapter v. and consequent closure of the school. In such cases, the retrenched teachers shall be given preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency or under other Educational Agencies. The causes for retrenchment which are not specifically mentioned in Section 13, but which find a place in Rule 5 A of Chapter XIV A, could be attributed to the expression "such other matters" occurring in Section 13. Section 13 would appear, on the wording, to be an enabling provision while Rule 5 A of Chapter XIV A is imperative. The agreement required to be executed under Rule 6 (viii) of Chapter v. of KER is one expressing the preparedness of the Applicant to "absorb" retrenched teachers. The second proviso to Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, KER provides that the first preference under the rule shall be given to "protected teachers". Such preference is for "appointment". The expression "protected teacher" is not defined in the Act or in the KER. Such expression occurs in the various executive orders. Going by the executive orders, protection will be available only for teachers who were appointed before 14-7-1997. What about Section 13 of the Act and Rule 5 A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R ` Could the benefit thereunder be restricted only in favour of teachers appointed before 14-7-1997 ` The second proviso to Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, KER refers to "protected teachers". Is the benefit thereunder restricted to the "protected teachers" coming under the various executive orders alone? Could the category of teachers coming under Section 13 of the Act and Rule 5A of Chapter XIV A, KER also claim the benefit under the second proviso to Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A ` The various executive orders relating to protection speaks of "deployment" of protected teachers. The protected teacher on deployment retains the lien in the parent school. What about the teachers who are "absorbed" in terms of the agreement under Rule 6 (viii) of Chapter V, K.E.R. and those who are appointed under Section 13 of the Act or Rule 5 A of Chapter XTV A, KER` Do they also retain the lien in the parent school? Is their absorption or appointment a temporary affair insofar as the Manager is concerned? Though the Kerala Education Rules are voluminous and though the executive orders are innumerable, one would find no clear answer to these questions. What about the Educational Officers who are