JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The decision of these original petitions depends upon the interpretation of rule 43B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. These original petitions which question the same orders are heard together. In O.P. No. 1427 of 1974 the aggrieved teacher is the petitioner while in O.P. No. 2630 of 1974 the petitioner is the Manager of Rajendra High School in which the petitioner in the former original petition is a Hindi teacher. Counter-affidavits are filed in O.P. No. 1427 of 1974 and in this judgment parties and exhibits are referred to as they are in O.P. No. 1427 of 1974. 2. The petitioner is now working as a full-time High School Assistant (Hindi). She was fully qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) on the date of commencement of her services in the above High School of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. She was first appointed as a full-time H.S.A. from 15th July 1963 to 25th March 1964 in a training vacancy. Thereafter, when a part-time post of H.S.A. (Hindi) came into existence, the petitioner was appointed in that post from 1st June 1964 onwards. In the year 1965-66 originally a full-time post of H.S.A. (Hindi) was there and then the petitioner was appointed as full-time H.S.A. Subsequently, the post was reduced into a part-time one and thereupon the petitioner continued as a part-time H.S.A. (Hindi) till 10th August 1972. The 5th respondent worked as a lower grade part-time Hindi teacher from 3rd July 1959 and became a lower grade full-time Hindi teacher from 23rd June 1960. 3. In the year 1972-73 the 2nd respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum by Ext. P-6 order dated 8th August 1972 converted the part-time post of H.S.A. (Hindi) in which the petitioner was working, into a full-time post of H.S.A. (Hindi). The 4th respondent-Manager appointed the petitioner in that newly created post of H.S.A. (Hindi). The 5th respondent who is a full-time lower grade Hindi teacher of the school complained to the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer against the above appointment of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent by Ext. P-6 order dated 24th November 1972 held that the petitioner is entitled to be posted in the newly created post of H.S.A. (Hindi). From that order the 5th respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent who by Ext. The 3rd respondent by Ext. P-6 order dated 24th November 1972 held that the petitioner is entitled to be posted in the newly created post of H.S.A. (Hindi). From that order the 5th respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent who by Ext. P-8 order dated 14th July 1973 allowed that appeal. From Ext. P-8 order, both the petitioner and the 4th respondent preferred revision petitions before the 1st respondent-State. Ext. P-9 in the case is the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Though in Ext. P-9 the petitioner has stated in detail her grounds against Ext. P-8 order, the 1st respondent by Ext. P-10 order dated 26th February 1974 rejected the revision. It is against Ext. P-10 order that the petitioner has approached this court by this Original Petition. 4. In O.P. No. 2630 of 1974, Ext. P 10 is Ext. P-8 and the order of the 2nd respondent produced in this case as Ext. P-8 is Ext. P-7. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the rightful claimant to the newly created post of H.S.A. (Hindi) that came into existence in August 1972. The 5th respondent cannot claim that post under rule 43B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 firstly because on 1st June 1964 when the petitioner was appointed as a High School Assistant (Hindi) part-time, she was not qualified for appointment as a High School Assistant (Hindi). If, as a matter of fact, the 5th respondent was not qualified for appointment in June 1964, there was no question of any option by the 5th respondent and hence the 5th respondent will have no claim under rule 43B (1) (i). In that case, the petitioner should get the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) as per rule 43B (1) (ii) because the petitioner was a part-time H.S.A. (Hindi) when the full-time H.S.A. post came into existence. For the purpose of deciding the question involved in the case it is not necessary to refer to other grounds taken by the petitioner in the Original Petition. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 the claim of the petitioner that she was holding the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) full-time at the time of filing this Original Petition is disputed on the ground that her appointment was not approved by the department. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 the claim of the petitioner that she was holding the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) full-time at the time of filing this Original Petition is disputed on the ground that her appointment was not approved by the department. Their Contention is that the 5threspondent has a preferential claim for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) under rule 43B (1) (i) and under the rule, the 5th respondent alone is entitled to that post. It is further contended that on 11th August 1972 when the vacancy arose, the 5th respondent was fully qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). Ext. R-1 G.O. MS. 601, dated 25th November 1966 is produced along with the counter-affidavit to substantiate the contention that the 5th respondent was qualified for the post. It is also stated in para 19 of the counter-affidavit that the 5th respondent had informed the 4th respondent in writing in 1965 her option for the lower grade post as per Ext. P-12 G.O. dated 10th November 1964. It has been admitted in para 21 of the counter-affidavit that the 5th respondent became fully qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) only in 1965 by passing L.T.T. It is to be noted in this context that till Ext. R-1 G.O. was issued on 25th November 1966 refixing the qualifications of Hindi teachers in secondary schools it was Ext. P-11 G.O. MS. 415/Edn., dated 29th April 1959 which laid down the qualifications for the post of language teachers. As per that G.O., the 5th respondent was not qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi).. Another contention taken in the counter-affidavit is that in view of the decision of this court in O.P. No. 2068 of 1972, the 5th respondent is a better claimant for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). It is to be pointed out that in this case, it is not the conflicting rights under rules 43 and 51A that arise for determination. But it is the rights under rule 43B that is to govern the claims of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. 7. The 5th respondent asserts in her counter-affidavit that she is fully qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). But it is the rights under rule 43B that is to govern the claims of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. 7. The 5th respondent asserts in her counter-affidavit that she is fully qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). But it is pertinent to note that she has not stated as to when she passed the L.T.T. The statement in para 21 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 as adverted to earlier in this judgment is that the 5th respondent became fully qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) by passing L.T.T. only in 1965. The further contention of the 5th respondent is that by virtue of her longer continuous service in the regular full-time post she has got a legitimate claim for promotion in the vacancy of H.S.A. (Hindi) which arose on 11th August 1972. The claim is put forward by the 5threspondent on the basis of rule 43B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. It is further stated that as per the order of preference in rule 43B, the 5th respondent is to be given the post of H.S.A. in question. On the basis of Ext. X-1 Government Circular dated 27th July 1972 also it is contended that the 5th respondent is to be preferred to the petitioner. 8. As has been pointed out earlier in this judgment the decision of this court referred to in Ext. X-1 cannot have any application to the facts of this case because it is the relative claims under rule 43B of Chapter XIVA that is to be considered here. Rule 43B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1969 reads: "43 B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 43, posts of full-time High School Assistants in a particular language shall be filled up by promotion in the following order of preference: (i) Lower grade language teachers who have the prescribed qualifications in that language for promotion to the post of High School Assistants in that language at the time of occurrence of the vacancy and who had given option in writing as per G.O. MS. 612/Edn., dated 10th November 1964 to continue as lower grade language teachers. (ii) Part-time High School Assistants in that language. (iii) Other lower grade language teachers in that Language. (iv) Regular primary teachers having the prescribed qualifications. (v) Graft and Specialist teachers having the prescribed qualifications. 612/Edn., dated 10th November 1964 to continue as lower grade language teachers. (ii) Part-time High School Assistants in that language. (iii) Other lower grade language teachers in that Language. (iv) Regular primary teachers having the prescribed qualifications. (v) Graft and Specialist teachers having the prescribed qualifications. (vi) If no teacher with the prescribed qualifications is available in the categories mentioned above, lower grade language teachers in any other language having the prescribed qualifications. (2) If qualified teachers as mentioned in sub-rule (1) are not available in schools under the same educational agency for promotion to the post of High School Assistants in that language, qualified candidates from outside may be appointed to that post." On 11th August 1972 when the vacancy of a H.S.A. (Hindi) arose, the petitioner was a H.S.A. (Hindi) part-time and the 5th respondent was a lower grade full-time Hindi teacher. Both were qualified for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). If the lower grade language teacher is to have the first priority under rule 43B for the post of the High School Assistant in that language, first of all the said teacher must have the prescribed qualification for the post. Secondly, the said teacher must be one who had already given an option in writing as per G.O. MS. 612/Edn., dated 10th November 1964 to continue as lower grade language teacher. The question of giving an option arises only if the lower grade language teacher was qualified for the H.S.A. post when the part-time H.S.A. post came into existence. If a lower grade teacher was not qualified for the H.S.A. post at that time, then no question of giving an option arises and even if an option was given by the lower grade teacher that cannot in any way entitle such teacher to claim the H.S.A. post under rule 43B (1) (i). In this case, admittedly the lower grade teacher was not qualified for the post of High School Assistant when the part-time H.S.A. post came into existence on 1st June 1964. Moreover, on 1st June 1964 an option cannot be given as per a Government Order dated 10th November 1964. In this case, admittedly the lower grade teacher was not qualified for the post of High School Assistant when the part-time H.S.A. post came into existence on 1st June 1964. Moreover, on 1st June 1964 an option cannot be given as per a Government Order dated 10th November 1964. Though the 5th respondent asserts that she gave an option in writing before the petitioner was appointed as part-time H.S.A. on 1st June 1964, that option cannot in any way entitle the 5th respondent to claim the H.S.A. post Under rule 43B (1) (i) because that option cannot be an option as per the G.O. dated 10th November 1964. If a lower grade teacher cannot claim the post under the first reference given in rule 43B (1) (i) then the part-time H.S.A. should get the H.S.A. post. Admittedly, the petitioner was a part-time H.S.A. in Hindi when the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) came into existence on 11th August 1972. The petitioner was appointed as part-time H.S.A. Hindi from 1st June 1964. So, the petitioner who is a part-time H.S.A. is the rightful claimant for the H.S.A. post and the 5th respondent the lower grade full-time teacher cannot have any superior claim to the post against the petitioner. 9. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the petitioner is the rightful claimant for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) and the 3rd respondent is directed to take necessary steps to approve the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (Hindi) of the Rajendra High School, Vellarada from 11th August 1972. Exts. P-8 and P-10 in O.P. No. 1427 of 1974 which are the same as Exts. P-7 and P-8 in O.P. No. 2630 of 1974 are hereby quashed. 10. The Original Petitions are allowed. No costs.