JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. These appeals are from the judgment in O.P. No. 4113 of 1973 and O.P. No. 2760 of 1973. O.P. No. 4113 of 1973 was filed by two petitioners, the Manager of the A.M.U.P. School, Poovambai and by one T. Ahammed who was appointed by the Manager as the Headmaster of the School, They challenged the refusal of approval of appointment of the 2nd petitioner by the educational authorities. The learned Judge dismissed the Original Petition. 2. O.P. No. 2760 of 1973 was by the 6th respondent in O.P. No. 4113 of 1973 who was an aspirant to the post of Headmaster to which place the 2nd petitioner in O.P. No. 4113 of 1973 had been appointed by the petitioner therein. The 3rd and 4th respondents in this O.P. are the petitioners in O.P. No. 4113 of 1973 and the 1st and 2nd respondents are the educational authorities. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal allowed this petition and directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to take necessary steps "to see that the 3rd respondent implements Ext. P-2 order" passed by the 2nd respondent. 3. The appeal from that judgment, W.A. No. 444 of 1974, is by respondents 3 and 4 in O.P. No. 2760 of 1973 who are the appellants in the other appeal. The question that arises in these two appeals is the same and we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. The question is whether the 1st respondent in Writ Appeal No. 444 of 1974 (the petitioner in O.P. No. 2760 of 1973) is entitled to preferential claims in the matter of being appointed as Headmaster or whether the Manager has the discretion to appoint the 1st respondent in that appeal (the 2nd appellant in these appeals). This question has to be determined on an interpretation mainly of rules 44, 45 and 45-A in Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, for short, the rules. Our attention has also been drawn to Chapter XXXI. We shall refer to the relevant rules in that Chapter in the course of the discussion. We shall now extract rules 44, 45 and 45-A of the Rules: "44. (1) Appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority. The Manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the rules laid down in the matter. We shall refer to the relevant rules in that Chapter in the course of the discussion. We shall now extract rules 44, 45 and 45-A of the Rules: "44. (1) Appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority. The Manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the rules laid down in the matter. A teacher if he is aggrieved by such appointment will have the right of appeal to the Department. (2) An appeal under sub-rule (1) shall lie to the Educational Officer. (3) A second appeal shall lie to the District Educational Officer against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer passed on an appeal preferred under sub-rule (2). In the case of an order passed by the District Educational Officer under sub-rule (2), the second appeal shall lie to the Regional Deputy Director. (4) No appeal or second appeal preferred under these rules shall be entertained unless it is preferred within one month of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. * * * * 45. Subject to Rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of complete U.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U.P. School becomes a complete U.P. School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. If there is a graduate teacher with B.Ed. or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching after graduation, he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher. If graduate teachers with, the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the school or schools under the same Educational Agency, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. qualification may be appointed. 45-A. Subject to rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of a complete L.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete L.P. School becomes complete, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. 45-A. Subject to rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of a complete L.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete L.P. School becomes complete, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. The person appointed as Headmaster shall have passed S.S.L.C or equivalent examination with T.T.C. In the case of those who are continuing as teachers with Standard VII or its equivalent with H.E.T.T.C. or its equivalent training qualification they shall have 12 years of continuous qualified service as Assistant for appointment as Headmasters of Lower Primary Schools.� 4. Certain matters are evident and clear from the unambiguous wording of rule 44. It is the Manager who has to make the appointments. The appointments of Headmasters have ordinarily to be in accordance with seniority. The Manager will appoint subject to the rules laid down. Rule 45 however is not very clear. The main argument stressed by counsel for the appellants was that rule 45 is only an enabling provision which would justify the appointment of a graduate teacher provided he had the service stipulated in the rule. The Manager, it is said, is not obliged to appoint a graduate even if one satisfying the conditions of the rule is available. Our attention was drawn to section 11 of the Kerala Education Act and it was urged that if there are no restrictions introduced by any sections or rules the choice must rest with the Manager. So it was repeated that the Manager may appoint a graduate teacher if he was so minded in the sense that if he thought that that was the proper course to adopt. This right to choose, it was urged, must apply also to the case of the appointments of an S.S.L.C., T.T.C. referred to in the last sentence of rule 45. Support was sought to be gained, for the above interpretation from the observation of Justice Mathew in Rev. Fr. I. Daniel v. Director of Public Instruction, 1965 K.L.T. 927. The passage relied on runs thus: "But if the Manager has got the fundamental right to appoint any person as Headmaster of the school provided that person got the requisite qualifications. I do not think that rule 45 would stand in the way of the Manager appointing the 2nd petitioner as Headmistress of the school. The passage relied on runs thus: "But if the Manager has got the fundamental right to appoint any person as Headmaster of the school provided that person got the requisite qualifications. I do not think that rule 45 would stand in the way of the Manager appointing the 2nd petitioner as Headmistress of the school. Rule 45 only lays down the circumstances under which a graduate teacher will be entitled to preference for appointment to the post of Headmaster in a school, where there is a non-graduate teacher who is his senior, it has nothing to do with the qualification necessary for appointment to the post of Headmaster as envisaged by he Full Bench. 5. Our attention was also drawn to Chapter XXXI of the rules and rule 1 of Chapter XXXI has been relied on to show that the educational and professional qualifications are those prescribed under Chapter XXXI and that therefore rule 45 in Chapter XIV (A) cannot be taken to be a provision prescribing qualifications. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that under Chapter XXXI, no qualifications have been prescribed at all for the Headmasters of U.P. Schools with which we are concerned here and to which rule 45 applies. 6. The real question is not whether rule 45 prescribes the qualification or not. The question is whether that rule has conferred a preference on certain persons holding certain qualifications in the matter of being appointed as Headmasters of Upper Primary, or whether the rule is only an enabling provision as contended by counsel, permitting the appointment of a graduate teacher who is junior to another teacher who is not a graduate provided the graduate teacher has the requisite service. This argument would have had some force if the second sentence enabling the appointment of the senior teacher has either not been there or had been differently worded. As it is, it is clear that if there is a graduate teacher with B.Ed., who has had at least five years experience in teaching after graduation, no teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. could be appointed as Headmaster, for, the rule says If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the school or schools under the same educational agency, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. qualification may be appointed. An appointment of a S.S.L.C. with T.T.C. is therefore possible only in the absence of a graduate teacher. This certainly imposes a compulsion, a compulsion in favour of the graduate teacher, in other words, giving a preferential right to the graduate teacher. This is provided by the rule which has to be obeyed by the Manager, for the power under rule 44 to appoint conferred on the Manager is only subject to and in accordance with the rules. We shall not strain to spell out any discretion which is not warranted by the wording of the rules. We have no doubt that the Manager has no discretion to overlook the claims of a graduate teacher with B.Ed. qualification and 5 years experience in teaching if one such was available, and prefer or choose a non-graduate with S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. That was what the Manager in this case did. He chose the 2nd appellant (W.A. No. 399 of 1974) who is not even an S.S.L.C., T.T.C. The further question is whether an S.S.L.C., T.T.C. is to be preferred to a non-S.S.L.C. The wording of the rule does not, as in the case of the appointment of the Headmaster give much help in the interpretation of the rule because there is no reference made to the power to appoint a non-S.S.L.C., T.T.C. at all. The point made by counsel is on the basis of the wording of rule 1 in Chapter XXXI, and the fact that no qualification has been prescribed for the post of Headmaster of an Upper Primary School. The controversy in these cases is between the 6th respondent in O.P. No. 4113 of 1973 who is a S.S.L.C. T.T.C. and the 2nd petitioner in the same O.P. (2nd appellant in both these cases) who is a non-S.S.L.C., T.T.C. Counsel contended that in the absence of any specific qualification prescribed for the Headmaster and in view of the proviso to rule 1 in Chapter XXXI which has saved the rights of those who had been appointed before the prescription of the qualification by the rules in that Chapter, to continue, would enable the Manager to appoint notwithstanding rule 45, a non-S.S.L.C., T.T.C. This question is not free from difficulty. But taking the cue from the provision regarding graduate teachers, and the wordings of rules 45 and 45-A, we think, we should understand the rule as being weighted in favour of persons who hold higher qualifications. We have already said that in the case of a graduate teacher he has to be preferred if he satisfied the conditions of the rule. We cannot interpret the rule as conferring a preferential right to a graduate teacher and denying such preferential right to an S.S.L.C., T.T.C. holder. The intention behind the rule is clearly indicative of a shift in favour of those holding higher academic qualifications. Safeguarding the interests of those that had been appointed before qualification was fixed in the proviso to rule 1 in Chapter XXXI would not have the effect of overriding the import of rule 45 so as to obliterate the preferential claim, if there is one, in favour of the higher qualified teachers. We are inclined to take the view that there is such a preference given by rule 45. 7. These two appeals cannot therefore be sustained. We dismiss these appeals but direct the parties to bear their respective costs.