JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The first petitioner is the Manager of an aided upper primary school at Padoor near Chavakkad. The 2nd petitioner is a fully qualified teacher who had admittedly put in approved service in the said school in question during the year 1970-71 and was relieved on account of the termination of the vacancy in which he was appointed. During the year 1971-72 there arose two vacancies in the 1st petitioner's school. The first was a permanent vacancy caused by the retirement of a teacher by name Mary with effect from 20th May 1971. The second vacancy was initially occasioned by the grant of maternity leave to one Bhavani from 3rd June 1971 to 14th July 1971. Smt. Bhavani did not rejoin duty on the expiry of her leave but resigned her post in the school with effect from 15th July 1971 with the result that the said vacancy also became converted into a permanent vacancy. Besides the 2nd writ petitioner there was another teacher by name U. J. Sicily who had also previously put in approved service in the school and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of preference for re-appointment under rule 51A of chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules. Originally the first petitioner appointed Smt. Sicily in Mary's retirement vacancy as per his order Ext. P-1 dated 1st June 1971. He also appointed the 2nd petitioner in the leave vacancy of Smt. Bhavani as per Ext. P-2 dated 3rd June 1971. Both the appointment orders were submitted by him to the Assistant' Educational Officer, Mullassery 1st respondent for his approval. By two separate proceedings passed on 26th June 1971 and evidenced by Exts. P-3 and P-4 respectively, the 1st respondent declined to grant the Manager's request for the-approval of the appointment of Sicily and the 2nd petitioner. By Ext. P-3 the Manager was informed that as per the existing orders on the subject, vacancies of regular class teachers could be filled up only after absorbing the supernumerary craft teacher having S.S.L.C. qualification working in the school and that until the said craft teacher was absorbed no fresh appointment could be made. On this ground the appointment order relating to Smt. Sicily Ext. P-1 and the enclosures forwarded therewith were returned by the 1st respondent to the Manager. On this ground the appointment order relating to Smt. Sicily Ext. P-1 and the enclosures forwarded therewith were returned by the 1st respondent to the Manager. In regard to the manager's request for approval of the appointment of the 2nd writ petitioner in the leave vacancy of Smt. Bhavani the 1st respondent stated in Ext. P-4 that the question of granting approval for the said appointment can be taken up only after the appointment of Smt. Sicily, who is the preferential claimant, was approved. The first petitioner thereupon submitted revised proposals before the 1st respondent appointing Smt. Sicily in the leave vacancy of Smt. Bhavani for the period from 3rd June 1971 to 14th July 1971 and in her resignation vacancy with effect from 15th July 1971 and appointing the 2nd petitioner in the retirement vacancy of Smt. Mary. After a lapse of nearly two months the 1st respondent issued the communication Ext. P-5 dated 12th October 1971 calling upon the Manager to state whether the supernumerary craft teacher working in the school had been absorbed against the retirement vacancy of Smt. Mary. It is further stated in Ext. P-5 that as per the rules the supernumerary hands on the rolls of the school have to be absorbed in the next available vacancies and that hence the question of approval of the appointment of Smt. Sicily could be taken up only on receipt of the information asked for in the said letter. The Manager (1st petitioner) then sent a reply as per Ext. P-6, dated 27th October 1971 wherein he expressed his inability to absorb the craft teacher in the retirement vacancy of Smt. Mary since the craft teacher did not possess the training qualification and there were fully qualified hands having legitimate claims. Along with Ext. P-6 the Manager submitted revised proposals for filling up the two vacancies where under Smt. Sicily was assigned the earlier permanent vacancy which had arisen consequent on the retirement of Smt. Mary and the 2nd petitioner was sought to be appointed in the vacancy of Smt. Bhavani who had originally gone on maternity leave and had thereafter resigned from the service of the school with effect from 15th July 1971. The 1st respondent by his order Ext. The 1st respondent by his order Ext. P-8 dated 7th January 1972 directed that the first vacancy which arose in the school with effect from 20th May 1971 consequent on the retirement of Smt. Mary is to be set apart for absorption of the supernumerary craft teacher working in the school and he approved the appointment of Smt. Sicily as an acting teacher in the leave vacancy of Smt. Bhavani for the period from 3rd June 1971 to 14th July 1971 and as a probationary teacher from 15th July 1971 in the resignation vacancy of the said Bhavani. By a separate order of the same date evidenced by Ext. P-9 the 1st respondent rejected the Manager's request for approving the appointment of the 2nd petitioner by stating that there was a long delay on the part of the Manager in forwarding the 2nd petitioner's appointment order to the 1st respondent. It is pointed out in Ext. P-9 that the order appointing the 2nd petitioner was dated 19th July 1971 and that it was submitted to the 1st respondent only along with the Manager's letter dated 27th October 1971. Yet another ground mentioned by the 1st respondent in Ext. P-9 is that the retirement vacancy of Smt. Mary has to be filled up only by absorbing the supernumerary craft teacher and in regard to the only other vacancy which was the one caused by the resignation of Smt. Bhavani the Manager had once submitted proposals for filling up the same by appointment of Smt. Sicily and that proposal could not be unilaterally revised by the Manager when the matter was pending consideration before the department; in other words, the retirement vacancy of Smt. Mary had to be set apart for absorption of the craft teacher and in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Smt. Bhavani, Smt. Sicily was entitled to be appointed with the result that there was no vacancy to which the 2nd petitioner could be given an appointment. The 1st petitioner (Manager) took up the matter in appeal before the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad 2nd respondent and contended before the said authority that the action of the Assistant Educational Officer in refusing approval for the appointment of the 2nd petitioner on the ground that the craft teacher with S.S.L.C. qualification should be absorbed in one of the two vacancies is unwarranted by the provisions of the Kerala Education, Act and the Rules. That contention did not, however, find favour with the 2nd respondent who rejected the appeal as per his order Ext. P-11 dated 24th March 1972. This Writ Petition has been brought jointly by the Manager and the 2nd petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P-8,P-9 and P-l 1. 2. The-main contention taken on behalf of the petitioners is that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have acted illegally in insisting that the craft teacher who admittedly does not possess the training qualification should be appointed in one of the two permanent vacancies of upper primary assistants which arose in the school during 1971-72. It is argued that the minimum qualification for appointment as teachers having been laid down under section 10 of the Kerala Education Act and the possession of the Teachers' Training Certificate having been prescribed 3s a mandatory requirement, it is not open either to the State Government or to the subordinate officers of the department to issue any executive orders or instructions compelling the Manager of an aided school to appoint an unqualified hand as a teacher in his school. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the unreported judgment of Mathew, J. in O. P. No. 4716 of 1968. Another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the 2nd petitioner had by virtue of the previous approved service put in by him in the school acquired a right to re-appointment in future vacancies of upper primary assistants arising in the school under rule 51-A of chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules and that the statutory right so conferred on him cannot be taken away by any executive order or instruction issued by the State Government or the officers of the Education Department. Counsel pointed out that besides the 2nd petitioner the only other teacher who had a preferential right to re-appointment in the school was Smt. Sicily, and since the two vacancies of upper primary assistants had arisen during 1971-72 and Smt. Sicily had been appointed by the Manager in the first of these vacancies, the petitioner was automatically entitled in law to be appointed in the second vacancy caused by the resignation of Smt. Bhavani. 3. The stand taken by the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents is that as per orders issued by the State Government evidenced by Exts. R-2 and R-4 there was a mandatory obligation cast on the Manager to absorb the craft teacher having S.S.L.C. qualification as an untrained primary teacher when a vacancy of upper primary assistant arose in the school and that until the craft teacher is so absorbed no appointment of any fresh hand can be made by the Manager. The argument of the petitioners based on rule 51A is sought to be answered by the Government Pleader by contending that the said rule will apply only when a person who is not already working in the school is to be appointed as a teacher and that it will have no application when the vacancy is being filled up by absorbing some one who is already employed in the service of the institution. 4. Although I find considerable force in the petitioners' contention that it is not legally open to the State Government to issue executive orders or instructions compelling a Manager to appoint a person not possessing the T.T.C. qualification as a teacher in the school when qualifications prescribed under section 10 of the Act make the possession of the Teachers' Training Certificate a mandatory requirement for eligibility for appointment as Upper Primary Assistants and when qualified candidates are available, I do not find it necessary to express any final opinion on that question in this case, because in my opinion the petitioners are entitled to succeed on their plea that the 2nd petitioner has acquired a legal right to be reappointed in the future vacancy arising in the school on the strength of the previous approved service put in by him by virtue of specific provisions in that behalf contained in rule 51A of chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules. As laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 175 of 1970, the words " preference for appointment " occurring in rule 51A mean right to appointment and a person discharged for want of vacancy has a right under the said rule to be appointed in future vacancies arising in the institution, provided he has not by word or deed given up that right. It is not disputed that the 2nd petitioner had put in approved service in the school during 1970-71 and that he is entitled to the benefit of rule 51A. I do not feel the slightest doubt that in such a case where the statutory rule has conferred on a person a right, it is not open to the State Government or to the officers of the Education Department to take away such right by issuing any executive orders or instructions to the contrary to the Manager of the institution. The Manager is entitled and is also in duty bound to give effect to the provisions contained in the statutory rule and that is what the 1st petitioner has done in the present case in appointing the 2nd petitioner to the vacancy caused by the resignation of Smt. Bhavani. Even if it is assumed for purposes of argument that a craft teacher having S.S.L.C. qualification is liable to be absorbed as an untrained primary teacher without advertisement, such a course can be compelled to be adopted by the Manager only in cases where there is no qualified teacher who has acquired a right to reappointment in the school under rule 51A by virtue of his having put in previous approved service in the institution. 5. It emerges from the above discussion that the view taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the first vacancy caused by the retirement of Smt. Mary had to be set apart for the absorption of the supernumerary craft teacher is illegal and unsustainable. The rightful claimant for that vacancy is Smt. U. J. Sicily and revised proposal submitted by the Manager on 27th October 1971 was perfectly in accordance with the rules. In the remaining vacancy occasioned by the grant of maternity leave to Smt. Bhavani and her subsequent resignation from the service of the school the 2nd petitioner is entitled to be appointed by virtue of his claims under rule 51A. In the remaining vacancy occasioned by the grant of maternity leave to Smt. Bhavani and her subsequent resignation from the service of the school the 2nd petitioner is entitled to be appointed by virtue of his claims under rule 51A. The Manager has assigned that vacancy to the 2nd petitioner in the revised proposals submitted by him on 27th October 1971. The grounds mentioned in Exts. P-8, P-9 and P-11 for refusing to approve the aforesaid proposals of the Manager are not correct or tenable. I find no merit in the observation made by the 1st respondent that the proposal made by the Manager regarding the appointment of the 2nd petitioner was belated when the 1st respondent had himself informed the Manager as per Ext. P-4 that the question of approval of the appointment of the 2nd petitioner could be taken up for consideration only after the grant of approval for the appointment of Smt. Sicily. 6. In the result Exts. P-8, P-9 and P-11 are quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the revised proposals submitted to him by the Manager on 27th October 1971 in the light of the observations and directions contained in this judgment. The Original Petition is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.