JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The question is who is entitled to preference in the matter of appointment as a teacher in an aided school in a permanent vacancy that occurred on the 1st June, 1967; the petitioner or the third respondent. The manager preferred the petitioner. But the approval of the appointment of the petitioner has been declined by Ext. P-2 order, dated 6th March 1968 and that order is impugned in this original petition. 2. The facts are the following: The petitioner was first appointed in the school on 1st August 1962. At that time the petitioner was unqualified and overaged. The petitioner would have it that the appointment was still valid because it was made under rule 2 of Chapter 21 of the Kerala Education Rules and that due exemption had been granted as regards age as envisaged by rule 3 of the same Chapter. That the appointment on 1st August 1962 of the petitioner was a proper appointment is admitted by the 4th respondent, the District Educational Officer in the counter-affidavit that has been filed in the case. Such an appointment will be a temporary appointment is clear from rule 2 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Even so it is urged that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of rule 5 in the same Chapter. That rule is in these terms: "5. Unqualified teachers appointed under Rule 2 and who acquire the prescribed qualifications subsequently shall have preference for appointments to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency."� 3. The third respondent has urged that she is entitled to be preferred to the petitioner because she was appointed as early as 1966 in the same school and at that time she was fully qualified and was not above the age limit. It is said that the petitioner acquired the qualifications only in March 1967. Rule 51A in Chapter XIV-A must therefore, it is submitted, apply. That rule is in these terms: "51 A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency."� 4. That rule is in these terms: "51 A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency."� 4. The third respondent has a further contention that no exemption on a permanent basis could have been granted to the petitioner when she was appointed on 1st August 1962 by virtue of the Note to rule 3 in Chapter 21 of the Rules. I shall read that rule as well as the Note thereto. "3. The conditions regarding age limit and relaxations thereof for appointment applicable to teachers of Government Schools shall apply to teachers of aided schools: Provided that the age limit applicable to teachers in Government Schools shall not apply for a period of three years from 1st June 1961 to persons who have the prescribed qualifications on the aforesaid date or who are undergoing teacher's training in a recognised institution on that date or who have undergone teacher's training in such an institution in any previous year but have not passed the training examination on that date, provided however, that the upper age limit shall not exceed forty years in any case. Note: The District Educational Officer may grant permanent exemption from age rule to qualified teachers, if non-availability of qualified candidates within age limit is proved in the manner prescribed by Government and after reference to Employment Exchange."� 5. The reason stated in the order Ext. P-2 for declining approval is that the petitioner is overaged. If there was a valid exemption granted and if that was a permanent exemption at the time of the appointment of the petitioner on 1st August 1962, the reason mentioned in Ext. P-2 cannot stand. This leads to the question as to whether a permanent exemption can be granted. The position is not very clear though the Note to rule 3 relied on by counsel for the third respondent seems to suggest that the right granted to the District Educational Officer to grant exemptions will apply only to qualified teachers. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has produced two orders passed by the Director of Public Instruction Exts. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has produced two orders passed by the Director of Public Instruction Exts. P-4 and P-5 which show that a permanent exemption from the age limit applicable can be granted even in the case of unqualified teachers. It is necessary that this conflict between the orders passed by the Director of Public Instruction and the implications of the Note to rule 3 of Chapter 21 must be resolved by a proper rule being framed or an amendment being made to rule 3 in Chapter 21. I am sure this will have the attention of the rule framing authority. I may add that adding Notes to the rules create complications because it is a debatable question whether such Notes can or are intended to qualify the rules. If they are intended to qualify the rules, it is better to frame them as provisios to the rules. 6. It is unnecessary for me to resolve the conflict in this case for I am of the view that the third respondent is entitled to preference by virtue of rule 51A in Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Rule 5 in Chapter XIV-A along with the Note to that rule, it appears to me, will apply when a person unqualified ad who had acquired the necessary qualification competes with a person who had no appointment whatever in the school earlier. If there are two unqualified teachers, both appointed in the school earlier, the Note indicates that the person who obtained the qualifications earlier will be entitled to preference. The rule and the Note do not deal with the case of a qualified person appointed to an earlier vacancy. 7. The third respondent was appointed in 1966 in the school. At that time she was fully qualified. The petitioner became qualified only in 1967 March. By the rigour of rule 51A the third respondent must get the appointment. Rule 5 in Chapter XIV-A cannot help the petitioner for the rule cannot apply when a qualified hand had been appointed in the school in an earlier vacancy though a temporary one. 8. I dismiss this petition but direct the parties to bear their respective costs.