Judgment :- 1. A learned judge of this Court felt that the decision of a Single Judge in P. J. Elyamma v. District Educational Officer (1965 KLT. 1185) required reconsideration or, at least, did not apply to this case; and the learned judge referred the case to a Division Bench. 2. The petitioner worked in the school of the second respondent for over 16 years from 1929 to 1946. Then he resigned and left the institution. Subsequently, on 29th July 1957, he was re-entertained in the same school; and he worked there till 14th July 1965, on which date he attained 55 and retired from service. On the basis of the Note to R.8 in Chapter XXVII-A of the Kerala Education Rules, the petitioner applied for permission to continue in the school till he attained 60. That was allowed by the Department, but was disallowed by the Government under Ex. P5. The writ petition is to quash Ex. P5: and the argument is that the petitioner worked in the school prior to 4th September 1957 and was therefore entitled to continue till he attained 60. (That is the effect of the Note to R.8). 3. In support of this contention, the decision of the Single Judge mentioned above in Elyamma's case has been cited. In that case, the petitioner commenced service as a teacher in a school as early as 1119 M. E. and served in the school for 10 months in pursuance of her first appointment. Thereafter, she worked in the school for several substantial periods; and, ultimately, she worked there permanently from 5th July 1959. The learned judge, in construing the Note to R.8, observed that the rule was not capable of the interpretation that there should be continuous service. Probably, this observation might apply to the case before the learned judge, but to apply that in that wide form to a case like the one before us is not warranted by the language of the Note. In this case, as we have already pointed out, the petitioner worked in the school for over 16 years, after which he voluntarily resigned and left the institution. Years after, he came back and was re-entertained. In such a case, we are of opinion, the Note to R.8 cannot, have any application. 4. In this case, as we have already pointed out, the petitioner worked in the school for over 16 years, after which he voluntarily resigned and left the institution. Years after, he came back and was re-entertained. In such a case, we are of opinion, the Note to R.8 cannot, have any application. 4. The next contention urged by the counsel of the petitioner is that the second appointment, at any rate, was prior to 4th September 1957, being on 29th July 1957. But, it is pointed out by the counsel on the other side that the said appointment was approved only with effect from 13th June 1558. Still, the counsel of the petitioner has contended that the appointment should be taken to have been on 29th July 1957; and, is support of this contention, he has cited the decision of Raman Nayar J. in Bhavani v. Bhanu (1959 KLT. 1008). That was a case where the plaintiff, the petitioner before the learned judge, was entertained as a teacher by the manager of a school and the teacher sued for the salary due to him on the contract between the manager and the teacher. The learned judge held that, under the agreement, whether the appointment was approved by the Government or not, the manager was liable to pay the salary of the teacher. That case, it is obvious, cannot be pressed into service in a case like the one before us. The learned judge was there construing R.8 (7) of the P. S. S. Scheme, which is similar to R.7 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules. The said rule says that the appointment shall be effective from the date on which the teacher is admitted to duty, provided the appointment is duly approved. In a case like this where the petitioner is claiming some right against the Department, the appointment should have been approved: for the petitioner to claim his salary for the period he worked in the school from the manager, such approval may not be necessary. The original petition is dismissed, however, without costs.