Judgment :- 1. The prayers in this petition are for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent evidenced by Ext. P-3 dated 7 51965 and to issue a mandamus or other appropriate order directing the 4th respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for being selected to the T. T. C. Course. Petitioner was appointed as teacher in the Kadavathur East Lower Primary School by the 5th respondent, the Manager, with effect from 112 1964. Petitioner by her application dated 13 41965 applied for admission to the T. T. C. Course. Petitioner has passed S. S. L. C. only in the 4th chance. After the appointment of the petitioner, the manager sought approval of the department. The 1st respondent declined the approval by Ext. P-3 order, which runs as follows: "The Manager, Kadavathur East L. P. S., is informed that as per orders contained in G. O. MS. No. 512/64/ Edn. dated 219 1964, those who have taken more than three chances to pass the S. S. L. C. examination are not eligible for appointment as untrained teacher in Primary Schools. Since M. P. Lakshmi, the untrained teacher appointed in his school has taken 4 chances to pass S. S. L. C. she cannot be granted exemption in the light of the above-said G. O." The G. O. referred to in the order is Ex. P-6. In Clause.2 of that G. O.It is laid down: "A pass in the S. S. L. C. examination or its equivalent examination with a minimum of 42 per cent marks each in English, Malayalam and Mathematics and an aggregate minimum of 40 per cent marks. Those who have taken more than three chances to pass the S. S. L. C. or its equivalent examination, shall not be appointed." Petitioner's counsel submitted that Ext. P-3 order is bad for the reason that the Government have not prescribed the qualifications for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Counsel relied on S.10 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), which reads: "The Government shall prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by persons for appointment as teachers in Government and private schools." and contended that Government can fix the qualifications only by the rules framed under S.36 of the Act. Counsel relied on S.10 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), which reads: "The Government shall prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by persons for appointment as teachers in Government and private schools." and contended that Government can fix the qualifications only by the rules framed under S.36 of the Act. The word 'prescribed' has been defined in sub-section (6) of S.2 and the definition reads: "'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this Act." Counsel therefore submitted that Government could not have fixed the qualifications of teachers by executive orders. The word 'prescribed' having been defined in the Act, it was submitted that that meaning must be given to the expression where ever the expression occurs in the Act and if so done, Government have no power to fix the qualification of teachers by executive orders. It may be noted that S.10 only uses the word 'prescribe', and that is not defined in the Act. It is significant that under the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, words singular shall include the plural and vice versa and words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include feminine. The learned Advocate-General, to whom notice was issued, submitted that the word 'prescribe' means prescribed by rules or by executive orders and since the word 'prescribe' is not defined in the Act, the court is not bound to give to that expression the meaning ascribed to the word 'prescribed' in the definition clause. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the word 'prescribed' has been used in sub-section (5) of S, 4 and even though the word used in that sub-section is 'prescribe', Government have framed rules for regulating the subject matter dealt with in the sub-section. That sub-section reads: "The Government may prescribe the procedure to be followed at the meetings of the Board, and all incidental and ancillary matters for the proper working of the Board". No positive inference can be drawn from the fact that the Government have framed rules regulating the procedure or the incidental matters for the working of the Board, even though the word used in S.4 (5) is 'prescribe'. It might as well be that Government could have regulated the subject matter dealt with by executive orders. No positive inference can be drawn from the fact that the Government have framed rules regulating the procedure or the incidental matters for the working of the Board, even though the word used in S.4 (5) is 'prescribe'. It might as well be that Government could have regulated the subject matter dealt with by executive orders. Petitioner's counsel argued that the language of S.11 would show that the word 'prescribe' as used in S.10 can only mean prescribed by rules. S.11 is as follows: 'Subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government, teachers of aided schools shall be appointed by the managers of such schools from among persons who possess the qualifications prescribed under S.10." I am not able to accept the interpretation suggested by counsel because S.11 only says "prescribed under S.10", which might mean prescribed by rules or executive orders. The use of the expression "prescribed under S.10" in S.11 does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the expression "prescribe" as used in S.10 is intended to have the meaning ascribed to the word 'prescribed' in the definition clause. S.2 of the Act begins by saying that in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the meaning given in the definition clauses to the words defined must be ascribed to them, where ever they occur. In the context in which the word 'prescribed' is used in S.11 it can only mean as prescribed by rules or executive orders, if the word 'prescribe' in S.10 means that. So we return to the question as to what is the meaning of the word 'prescribe' in S.10. The word 'prescribe' is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as: "I. To write first or beforehand; also, to describe beforehand. 2. To write or lay down as a rule or direction to be followed; to appoint, ordain, direct, enjoin. To lay down a rule; to dictate, appoint, direct. Of a law or custom: To be of force. 3. To advise or order the use of (a medicine etc) with directions for the manner of using it. To limit; to confine within bounds." II. Law. To make a claim by prescription; to assert a prescriptive right or claim (to or for something;) 2. Of a law or custom: To be of force. 3. To advise or order the use of (a medicine etc) with directions for the manner of using it. To limit; to confine within bounds." II. Law. To make a claim by prescription; to assert a prescriptive right or claim (to or for something;) 2. To plead prescription of time against an action, statute, or penalty; to cease to be liable on account of the lapse of the prescribed time." On the consideration of the matter, I am not inclined to think that S.10 postulates that the qualifications for appointment as teachers can be laid down only by rules framed by Government under S.36 of the Act. It was argued for the petitioner that the presupposition of the Legislature when passing the Act was that Government would frame rules prescribing the qualifications of the teachers to be appointed and relied upon the following passage in In re The Kerala Education Bill, AIR. 1958 Supreme Court 956 at page 975: "The power given to the Government by Clause.36 to make rules is expressly stated to be exercised "for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act". In other words, the rules to be framed must implement the policy and purpose laid down in its long title and the preamble and the provisions of the other clauses of the said Bill. Further, under Clause.37 the rules have to be laid for not less than 14 days before the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible after they are made and are to be subject to such modifications as the Legislative Assembly may make during the session in which they are so laid. After the rules are laid before the Legislative Assembly they may be altered or amended and it is then that the rules, as amended become effective. If no amendments are made the rules come into operation after the period of 14 days expires. Even in this latter event the rules one their efficacy to the tacit assent of the legislative Assembly itself. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala submitted in picturesque language that here was what could be properly said to be legislation at two stages and the measure that will finally emerge consisting of the Bill and the rules with or without amendment will represent the voice of the Legislative Assembly itself and. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala submitted in picturesque language that here was what could be properly said to be legislation at two stages and the measure that will finally emerge consisting of the Bill and the rules with or without amendment will represent the voice of the Legislative Assembly itself and. therefore, it cannot be said that an unguided and uncontrolled power of legislation has been improperly delegated to the Government. Whether in approving the rules laid before it the Legislative Assembly acts as the Legislature of Kerala or acts as the delegatee of the Legislature which consists of the Legislative Assembly and the Governor is, in the absence of the standing orders and rules of business of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, more than we can determine. But all that we need say is that apart from laying down a policy for the guidance of the Government in the matter of the exercise of powers conferred on it under the different provisions of the Bill including Clause.36, the Kerala Legislature has, by Clause.15 and Clause.37 provided further safeguards. In this connection, we must bear in mind what has been laid down by this Court in more decisions than one. namely, that discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and the abuse or power by the Government will not be lightly assumed. For reasons stated above it appears to us that the charge of unconstitutionality of the several clauses which come within the two questions now under consideration founded on Art.14 cannot be sustained." The passage would not show that the expression as used in the S.10 indicates that the prescription of the qualification of teachers can only be by rules framed under S.36 of the Act. I would hold that Government was competent to lay down the qualifications of the teachers to be appointed in aided schools by executive orders. If that be so, Ext. P-3 order is not open to challenge, and in view of R.10 of Chapter XXV, petitioner was not qualified to be selected for the T. T. C. Course. I dismiss the petition. No costs.