staff fixation order were to the effect that the common seniority list of LPSA and UPSA could be followed for all purposes. It is submitted that by a retrospective amendment to Rule 34(b) made on 18.3.2011, the rights accrued to the 4th respondent cannot be taken away. It is further contended that until the Full Bench laid down the law as to the entitlement of teachers in the different categories to continue on the basis of seniority in the respective category in case of retrenchment, the position of law was not clear. In the above circumstances, it is contended that the prescription contained in the Government order dated 16.2.2011 was perfectly in order as on the date of its issuance. Therefore, the 4th respondent was entitled to continue during the academic year 2010-2011, since that was the effect of the Rules then in force. It is further contended that the clear effect of the amendment in 2011 and the different dates of effect given to sub-rules (a) and (b) of Rule 34 of Chapter XIVA KER would go to show that the purpose of the amendment was not to take away the accrued rights of teachers on the basis of seniority list already prepared by the unamended provision of Rule 34(b). It is further contended that the explanatory note to the amendment, which is produced as Exhibit R4(k) would make it evident that there is no such intention for taking away of accrued right by the amendment. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported
