Section 10 says that "the Government shall prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by persons for appointment as teachers in Government and private schools". I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the Petitioner that power of the manager under Section 11 can be restricted only by an amendment of the Act and not by Rules or executive orders. Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII contains a non obstante clause, namely, "notwithstanding anything contained in these rules". It is relevant to note that in Rule 2 of Chapter XXIII, K.E.R., the wording of the non obstante clause is: "notwithstanding anything contained in any other rule in this Chapter". Thus it is clear that the non obstante clause in Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII covers the KeralaEducation Rules as a whole and it is not restricted in its application to the rules in Chapter XXIII. In view of the non obstante clause in Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII, the contention raised by the Petitioner that the said rule offends Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII and Rule 23 of Chapter VI, K.E.R. is also without substance. Point No. 6: 33. The Petitioners contended that Rule 6 (viii) of Chapter v. was amended by the KeralaEducation (Amendment) Rules, 2010, whereby the liability of the managers have been enhanced. If the amended provisions are applied retrospectively, it would seriously affect the rights of the Managers. The Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 2010 came into force on 25th May 2010. The Government Order [GO.(P) No. 10/10] was issued on 12-1-2010. In the Writ Petitions, the validity of the Government Order dated 12-1 -2010 is challenged. Therefore the question of validity of the amendment introduced by the Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 2010 need not be considered in these Writ Petitions and it is left open. Point No. 7: 34. The minority educational institutions have raised a contention that the Government Order in question is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Rev. Fr. W. Proost and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 465, D.A.V. College, Jullunddur v. The State of Punjab and Ors. : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1737, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State : (1974) 1 S.C.C. 717, N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School : (1998) 6 S.C.C.674, Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training v. Director of Public Instructions, Sagar and Ors. : (1998) 8 S.C.C. 555, Brahma Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal 2004 (2) K.L.T. 742 (S.C.), Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. Jose 2007 (1) K.L.T. 22 (S.C.) and the decisions of this Court in V. Rev. Mother Provincial and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1969 K.L.T. 749, State of Kerala and Anr. v. The Corporate Management of Schools of the Archdiocese of Changanacherry 1970 K.L.T. 232, Joseph Kachappilly v. State of Kerala 1997 (2) K.L.T. 740; and Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala : 2006 (4) K.L.T. 264 were relied on by the Petitioners. The learned Advocate General cited the decisions in SindhiEducation Society and Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. : (2010) 8 S.C.C. 49, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481, Fr. Mathew v. State ofKerala 1978 K.L.T. 763, Rev. Kuriakose and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1980 K.L.N. 443and Balan v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1981 K.L.T. 242. 35. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka : (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481, the Supreme Court held: