ORDER Shiv Dayal, C.J.- 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to "continue to absorb the petitioner in the post of Principal and treat him as such for all purposes." 2. The petitioner entered into the service of the Janpad Sabha, Lakhnadon, on July 1, 1954. He was appointed Assistant Teacher in a school managed and controlled by the said Janpad. He continued in service in various schools until September 30, 1969. During this period of his Continuous service, on July 1, 1951, he was promoted as Principal of a Higher Secondary School under the control and management of the said Janpad, in which post he was subsequently confirmed by the Janpad with effect from November 1, 1968. 3. On September 30, 1969, he was working as Principal, Higher Secondary School, Chhapara (Seoni). On October 1, 1969, the school was taken over by the State Government on the terms and conditions incorporated in the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Education Department Memorandum dated December 21, 1967, In fact, all such institutions which were managed and controlled by the Janpad Sabhas were, likewise, taken over by the State Government. Finally the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Education Department Letter No. 11548/8760/20-1/72 dated December 6, 1972, addressed to the Director, Public Instructions, Bhopal, by the Education Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, in the name of the Governor, of Madhya Pradesh laid down the rules or instructions for absorption. Broadly speaking, there were 4 categories of teachers, under which the teachers of the Schools taken over from the Janpad Sabhas had to be absorbed:- (i) Principals. (ii) Lecturers. (iii) Upper Division Teachers. (iv) Lower Division Teachers. The prescribed qualifications were as follows;- (i) For being absorbed as Principal : (a) he must have obtained a post-graduate degree; (b) he must have at least 10 years teaching experience; and (c) he must have been working on the post of the Principal in the same (taken over) institution for at least 7 years. (2) For being absorbed as a Lecturer, a teacher must have obtained a post-graduate degree. (3) For being absorbed as an Upper Division Teacher, a teacher must be a graduate. (2) For being absorbed as a Lecturer, a teacher must have obtained a post-graduate degree. (3) For being absorbed as an Upper Division Teacher, a teacher must be a graduate. Then comes rule 4 under which a person who does not satisfy the qualifications contained in (1), (2) or (3) above, would be absorbed in the lower post according to his qualifications. This rule is immediately followed by two provisos. "However: - (a) While absorbing anyone in the lower post. it shall be seen that he will he absorbed only one grade lower than the post on which he was working on the date of the institution having been taken Over ; and (b) Where the requisite qualification for any post is a post-graduate degree, the person concerned will have to obtain that degree within 3 years from the date of absorption." 4. The petitioner was a trained graduate (B.A.B.T.). He had worked on the post of Head-Master. Principal since April 1, 1959 that is, for more than 7 years as on October 1, 1969, in the same institution; and he had teaching experience since July 1, 1954. i.e. more than 10 years. Thus, he satisfied the second and third conditions, but not the first. The degree of Bachelor of Teaching is not a post-graduate degree. Since the petitioner did not possess a post-graduate degree, he could not be absorbed either as principal or even as a Lecturer under the main rule 3. He was eligible to be absorbed only as an Upper Division Teacher. However by virtue of the proviso (a), he was absorbed as a Lecturer. 5. It is not necessary to state details of his service after the school was taken over by the State Government. He states that all along he has been working as Principal. 6. This brings to the question which is really in controversy. The petitioner passed the M.A. (final) examination in the academic year 1973-74, i.e. within 3 years of the date of his absorption. The Petitioner's contention is that he thus became qualified for being absorbed as Principal. He states that all along he has been working as Principal. 6. This brings to the question which is really in controversy. The petitioner passed the M.A. (final) examination in the academic year 1973-74, i.e. within 3 years of the date of his absorption. The Petitioner's contention is that he thus became qualified for being absorbed as Principal. When this petition was filed in 1973, he had already passed the M. A. (Previous) examination, held in the academic year 1972-73 (para 14 of the petition) The respondents have not controverted the averment that he has obtained the post graduate degree of Master of Arts in the academic year 1373-74, which is within 3 years from the date of his absorption, according to the final absorption rules of December 6, 1972. 7. The contention for the petitioner is that by virtue of proviso (b) to Rule 4, he earned the qualification of being absorbed as Principal, Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that proviso (b does not entitle the petitioner or any other person of his category to be absorbed as Principal because of his having obtained the post graduate degree within the prescribed period. He has merely qualified to continue as Lecturer and is protected from being demoted as an Upper Division Teacher. 8. The difference in the rival contentions lies in the approach, particularly in the construction of proviso (b). The question is whether proviso (b) is an independent proviso to rule 4, or is a sub-proviso to proviso (a) to rule 4, In the latter case, the construction of the rule will be this' "If a Principal of a taken over institution does not hold a post-graduate degree (i) by virtue of rule 4 (read without the proviso), he was qualified to be absorbed as an Upper Division Teacher, provided he is a graduate; otherwise, as Lower Division Teacher, notwithstanding that he may have worked as Principal for 7 years in the same institution and may also possess 10 years teaching experience. (ii) however, by virtue of proviso (a), he will be absorbed as a lecturer (i.e. one grade below the post of Principal), although he may not be even a graduate. (ii) however, by virtue of proviso (a), he will be absorbed as a lecturer (i.e. one grade below the post of Principal), although he may not be even a graduate. (iii) since he does not hold a post-graduate degree, he is really not entitled to be absorbed as a Lecturer." But a latitute is shown to this category of teachers, that is, three years time is granted to them within which they should acquire a post-graduate qualification, which is normally required for holding a post of Lecturer. The respondents' argument is that if he does not acquire a post-graduate degree, within three years of the date of Absorption, the benefit of proviso (a) is forfeited and he has to go back as Upper Division Teacher or lower Division Teacher, according as he is a graduate or not even a graduate. At first, this interpretation appealed to us as plausible, but on a further reflection, we have reached a contrary conclusion. 9. On a careful analysis of rule 4, we are clearly of the view that final absorption rules were studiously made generous and benevolent in favour of the teachers who were absorbed from such institutions. That indication is in the preamble. The general rule framed was that persons who had been working as Principals should be absorbed as Principals, if they possess the three requisite qualifications. Likewise, a person who was lecturer should be absorbed as such provided he/she holds a post-graduate degree. The generosity shown was that three year's time was given to them to obtain a post-graduate degree, if one did not possess it already. To put it differently, the rule meant to say :- (1) You Mr. 'A' would have been absorbed as a lecturer, as you were a lecturer in the taken over institution, but since you do not hold a post-graduate degree, you will be absorbed in lower post. However, if you obtain the post-graduate degree within 3 years, you will be absorbed as lecturer. (2) You Mr. 'B' would have been absorbed as Principal, as you have been working as principal for 7 years in the same institution and have also 10 years teaching experience, but you have to be absorbed in lower post because you do not possess post-graduate degree. However, if, within 3 years you obtain a post-graduate degree, you will be absorbed as Principal. 'B' would have been absorbed as Principal, as you have been working as principal for 7 years in the same institution and have also 10 years teaching experience, but you have to be absorbed in lower post because you do not possess post-graduate degree. However, if, within 3 years you obtain a post-graduate degree, you will be absorbed as Principal. In order that a Principal may not feel frustrated on the school having been taken over by the State Government, he was given a chance to obtain a post-graduate degree, which was the only requisite wanting in him. And, for this, no indefinite time, but a limited period of 3 years was fixed. This gesture of benevolence or grace was quite reasonable and natural. This construction fully fits in with the language of proviso (b). 10. The rules of absorption, as contained in the aforesaid letter of December 6, 1972, are numbered. Rule 4 contains two provisos, which are numbered as (a) and (b). The conjunction "and" has been employed to separate them. That being so, the two provisos must be read independent of each other, unless such reading will lead to any absurdity. In the lasmentioned construction we do not see any absurdity, or unreasonableness. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents reads proviso (b) as a further condition to proviso (a) itself. He urges that the benefit of proviso (a) is only a provisional one to be afforded to a teacher at the time of absorption. It is subject to the condition that the absorption as lecturer will stand confirmed, provided he obtains, within 3 years, a post-graduate degree, which is requisite for that post, otherwise, he has to go back to the post to which he is really entitled under the principal rule 4; If that was the intendment of the rule, the language would have been quite different. It would have at least indicated that in case a teacher, who is absorbed on a post requiring post-graduate degree, does not secure a post-graduate degree within 3 years allowed under proviso (b), he would be demoted. All that can be said is that the expression ^^izkIr djuk gksxh^^ (shall be obtained) may be unhappy. It does not drive one to the conclusion that if it is not obtained, he will go back as Upper Division Teacher. All that can be said is that the expression ^^izkIr djuk gksxh^^ (shall be obtained) may be unhappy. It does not drive one to the conclusion that if it is not obtained, he will go back as Upper Division Teacher. Although it is not of much significance it may be mentioned that the respondents have not cited a single case before us where a Principal, having been absorbed as a Lecturer by virtue of proviso (a), was demoted as Upper Division Teacher on the ground that he did not obtain a post-graduate degree within the prescribed period of 3 years. That being so, it can be said that the department itself has been reading the second proviso according to the view we are taking. 12. The respondents' contention is not supported by the nature of the numbering of the two provisos (a) and (b); otherwise, there would have been only one proviso and what has been numbered as proviso (b) would have been embodied in proviso (a) itself. 13. In Smt. Juthika Bhattacharya v. State of M.P. and others Civil Appeal No:696 of 1976, decided on the 1st September 1976 (SC), although this point does not appear to have been directly arisen there, the following observations undoutedly support us in the view we take :- "Relying upon a Memorandum dated December 6, 1972, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in its Department of Education, the appellant contended that even assuming that she could not be appointed as a Principal for the alleged reason that she did not hold a post graduate degree, she could not obtain that degree any time within 3 years from the date of her absorption and therefore the order passed by the State Government, before the expiry of that period appointing her on a lower post is illegal. There is no substance in this argument because the Memorandum of December 6, 1972 applies, in terms, only to the staff of the Higher Secondary Schools run by Janpad Sabhas and Municipalities and not to the staff of schools run by private Societies like the school of which the appellant, on the date of absorption, was the Head Mistress. Paragraph 4 (b) of the aforesaid Memorandum undoubtedly affords the facility that where the qualification for a post is post-graduation, the post-graduate degree may be obtained within 3 Years from the date of absorption. Paragraph 4 (b) of the aforesaid Memorandum undoubtedly affords the facility that where the qualification for a post is post-graduation, the post-graduate degree may be obtained within 3 Years from the date of absorption. But in view of the express statement in the Memorandum that it wilt be 'applicable only to the previous teachers of Janpad Sabhas and Municipalities, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of that particular facility.' (Underlined here italics by us) 14. The result of the above discussion is that a Principal who was absorbed as a Lecturer by virtue of Rule 4 (proviso (a) of the Memorandum dated December 6, 1972 (supra), is entitled to be absorbed as a Principal, if he obtains a post-graduate degree within 3 years from the date of absorption. 15. The petitioner was absorbed as a Lecturer under Rule 4 (a) by order dated February 26, 1973, of the Director of Public Instruction (Annexure XI). Since he obtained the degree of Master of Arts in the academic year 1973-74, he became entitled to be absorbed as Principal by virtue of Rule 1, read with proviso (b) to Rule 4. 16. The petition is allowed, a mandamus shall issue to the respondents to absorb the petitioner as principal by virtue of rule 1, rule 4 (b) contained in the memorandum dated December 6, 1972. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. The amount of security deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded.