JUDGMENT : P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on 13th January 1970 in the academic year 1969-70 as High School Assistant in the first respondent's school. She worked in that post till 16th March 1970 on which date the vacancy terminated due to the rejoining of the teacher who was on leave. During the academic year 1970-71 the petitioner was again appointed as High School Assistant in the same school on 22nd August 1970 in another leave vacancy which post she held till 17th December 1970. Thus the petitioner has a total previous service of 6 months and 1 day. 2. The 4th respondent is another teacher who had worked in the same school in another leave vacancy for the period from 1st September 1970 to 26th November 1970. According to the petitioner the length of prior service of the petitioner being more than that of the 4th respondent she must have preference in the matter of appointment in the same school when subsequently a new vacancy arose. 3. During the academic year 1970-71 a new post was sanctioned in the school on 26th August 1970 and in that post a thrown out hand, P.E. Sosamma was appointed. Before the new post was created there were 20 posts of High School Assistants and according to the petitioner 5 of them were Mathematics teachers, eight Science hands and seven Social Studies teachers which meant that the subject requirements were fully satisfied. It is therefore the petitioner's case that in making any fresh appointment subject requirements need not be noticed and so other considerations should prevail and if those prevail the petitioner having longer period of service will have preferential claim to appointment than the 4th respondent. 4. During 1971-72 due to the retirement of the Headmaster who was a Social Studies hand, a permanent vacancy arose in the school. The sanctioned strength of that year was also 21. The petitioner who is a Social Studies hand thereupon approached the first respondent for appointment but she was not accepted by him. An appeal petition was filed before the second respondent, the District Educational Officer concerned, which petition Ext. P-1, was not attended to. Subsequently another representation, Ext. P-2, was made to which the first respondent, the Manager, sent a reply Ext. P-3. An appeal petition was filed before the second respondent, the District Educational Officer concerned, which petition Ext. P-1, was not attended to. Subsequently another representation, Ext. P-2, was made to which the first respondent, the Manager, sent a reply Ext. P-3. That pointed out that Sosamma was the seniormost hand and not the petitioner and that Sosamma had been appointed in the vacancy created by the retirement of the Headmaster. But apparently the petitioner's complaint was not about the appointment of Sosamma, but that of the 4th respondent. Later, on the representation before the second respondent, he passed Ext. P-4 order accepting the claim of the petitioner and the appointment of the 4th respondent by the manager was not approved. Thereafter the petitioner approached the manager for appointing her pursuant to Ext. P-4. A representation was filed before the Regional Deputy Director that in spite of Ext. P-4 the first respondent refused to appoint the petitioner. It would appear that the manager also had filed an appeal before the Regional Deputy Director which was disposed of by Ext. P-6 order wherein 2nd respondent was directed to approve the appointment of the 4th respondent. 5. It would appear from Ext. P-6 that the Regional Deputy Director who is the 3rd respondent, seems to be of the view that the special requirements justified the appointment of the 4th respondent in preference to the petitioner. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is stated that the reappointment of the 4th respondent as High School Assistant in 1971-72 was justifiable as the 4th respondent was a Mathematics hand and that was required for the purpose of the school. 7. The petitioner has attempted to show that the minimum number of hands for Mathematics, namely five was satisfied even without a fresh Mathematics hand being appointed and therefore the fresh appointee could be a Mathematics hand or a Social Studies hand. That of course appears to be the case. But then necessarily another question arises. 8. Assuming that the subject requirements did not necessitate the appointment of the 4th respondent and assuming further that both the petitioner and the 4th respondent are qualified teachers who were entitled to appointment in the first respondent's school could it be said that the manager cannot prefer the 4th respondent to the petitioner? But then necessarily another question arises. 8. Assuming that the subject requirements did not necessitate the appointment of the 4th respondent and assuming further that both the petitioner and the 4th respondent are qualified teachers who were entitled to appointment in the first respondent's school could it be said that the manager cannot prefer the 4th respondent to the petitioner? In other words, the question is whether as between the qualified teachers is the manager obliged to appoint the one with longer previous service and not choose one out of them as he likes. I called upon the counsel for the petitioner to point out any rule in the Kerala Education Rules which obliged the manager to appoint from among qualified teachers that had served in his school previously the one with a longer period of service. My attention has not been drawn to any such rule though the counsel referred to various rules which apparently have no bearing on the question. 9. It is necessary to understand the background of the enactment of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 to appreciate the real purport of the rules. Prior to the enactment of the Kerala Education Act there was no statutory restriction on the right and freedom of the manager to choose teachers for his school. The manager had liberty to appoint any he wanted subject to requirements as to minimum qualification. Therefore it is not as if the Kerala Education Act for the first time conferred any rights in this behalf on the manager of the school. On the other hand the scheme of the Act and the Rules is to restrict the power of managements in the matter of appointing teachers in their schools. Therefore, the provision in the Kerala Education Rules have to be understood not as conferring power in regard to appointments but imposing restrictions on the pre-existing authority of the management. Therefore, if there is no provision in regard to a particular matter imposing restriction in the matter of choice of teachers that cannot be read into as necessarily implied in any rule. If there is no restriction the manager's choice must prevail. Therefore, if there is no provision in regard to a particular matter imposing restriction in the matter of choice of teachers that cannot be read into as necessarily implied in any rule. If there is no restriction the manager's choice must prevail. If as between two teachers who are qualified and who had served in the manager's school previously the manager chose one for appointment that would be valid unless provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules made thereunder obliged him to choose the one with the longer period of previous service in his school. With this view I have examined various provisions to which my attention has been drawn by the counsel for the petitioner. It was conceded that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules which prescribes such restriction directly. 10. Reference is made to rule 51A of Chapter XIV of the Kerala Education Rules. That only provides that qualified teachers who are relieved as per rule 49 or 52 on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the some educational agency provided they had not been appointed in permanent vacancies in school under any other educational agency. Therefore, the rule is only one providing for preference of qualified teachers as against unqualified teachers. A manager is not free to choose an unqualified teacher when a qualified teacher falling within the scope of the rule is available. But the rule does not lay down or purport to lay down any guidance in the matter of choice between two qualified teachers, both of whom are either relieved under rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies. 11. My attention was next invited to the Note to rule 5 of Chapter XIV-A. That Note reads as follows: "Note. — If more than one person acquire the prescribed qualifications subsequently, preference as among them shall be given to the person who acquired the qualifications earliest. If more than one person acquire the prescribed qualifications on the same date, the person with the earliest date of first appointment as an unqualified hand, shall be preferred." That only provides that as between persons who acquire prescribed qualifications and who are unqualified preference has to be given to the person who acquires the qualification first. If more than one person acquire the prescribed qualifications on the same date, the person with the earliest date of first appointment as an unqualified hand, shall be preferred." That only provides that as between persons who acquire prescribed qualifications and who are unqualified preference has to be given to the person who acquires the qualification first. The counsel's argument is that if between two persons who acquire qualifications on different dates the date of acquisition of the qualification is a relevant criterion, by anology the one with the longer period of service should be preferred. It is dangerous to import anologies in such matters. The court can be guided only by the rules. 12. Reference is again made to rule 34 which only mentions that every management shall prepare and maintain in the prescribed form a staff list otherwise called seniority list of teachers. The counsel also refers to the provisions as to how the seniority list is to be prepared. But I see no relevance in these provisions to the matter under consideration. 13. Then the counsel relies on rule 51 which provides that when a vacancy in any category of post terminates necessitating the relief of a teacher, senior hands shall ordinarily be retained in preference to junior hands with due regard to the subject requirements. According to counsel here again the anology has to be applied to the case before me. As I said earlier it is not for me to make law on the basis of anology and taking into account similar situations. 14. I am not shown any provision in the Kerala Education Act or the Rules thereunder which restricts the freedom in the matter of choice of appointment by a manager as between two qualified teachers who have served earlier in the same school. I do not think that when the manager has preferred the 4th respondent to the petitioner the court is justified in interfering with it. Therefore, whatever may be the reason mentioned in Ext. P-4 order, when the matter is before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the situation is what has been shown to be as explained above, I do not think the court is justified in quashing Ext. P-6 order. In the circumstances the original petition is dismissed, but I direct the parties to suffer costs.