Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this original petition who was a part-time Language Teacher (Hindi) claims the post of full-time language Teacher (Hindi) created by converting the part-time post into full time. The question that arises for consideration is whether the full-time post created can be filled up by promoting the petitioner under R.43 Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education R.1959, for short the Rules, or will it go to the 5th respondent who is a qualified thrown-out full time language Teacher (Hindi) given protection as per G O.M S.104/69/Edn dated 6-3-1969. The further question that arises for consideration is whether the transformation of a part-time teacher into a full-time teacher involves a promotion 2. The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Language Teacher (Hindi) in the Sivagiri High School in the year 1964. In the year 1972-73 the part-time post in which the petitioner was working was converted into full-time by the staff fixation order issued by the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer. Thereupon, the 1st respondent-Manager promoted the petitioner as full-time Language Teacher (Hindi) and appointed her in the full-time post created. But the 2nd respondent by Ext. P1 order dated 10-10-1972 declined approval to the petitioner's appointment on the ground that the 5th respondent was the rightful claimant to the post. The 5th respondent was a full-time Language Teacher (Hindi; in the A. V. High School, Kuruchi who was retrenched in the year 1966-67. Later, she was given protection as per G.O. MS. 104/69/ Edn. dated 6-3-1969 and posted in a Govt. School. In the year 1968 the management of the A. V. High School was taken over by the Corporate Educational Agency namely, Sree Narayana Dharma Sangham Trust School, Sivagiri Mutt. Against Ext. P1 the petitioner filed Ext. P3 appeal before the 3rd respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction. The 1st respondent also filed Ext P4 appeal against Ext. P1 order. The 2nd respondent dismissed Ext. P4 appeal by Ext. P5 order. Against Ext P5 order of the 2nd respondent the petitioner filed Ext. P6 'appeal' to the Minister for Education. This was rejected by Ext. P7 order of the 4th respondent-State. In this original petition the petitioner challenges Exts. P1, P5, and P7 orders. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. 3. P5 order. Against Ext P5 order of the 2nd respondent the petitioner filed Ext. P6 'appeal' to the Minister for Education. This was rejected by Ext. P7 order of the 4th respondent-State. In this original petition the petitioner challenges Exts. P1, P5, and P7 orders. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. 3. Sri N. N. Divakaran Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that under R.43 Chapter XIVA of the Rules, the petitioner, who was part-time Language Teacher (Hindi), was the person to be promoted and appointed in the full-time post which was created by the conversion of the part-time post by the staff fixation order for the year 1972-73. According to the learned counsel, the 5th respondent, who was only a qualified thrown-out full-time Language Teacher (Hindi) given protection as per G. O. MS. 104/69/Edn. dated 6-3-1969, can claim the full-time post only under R.51A Chapter XIVA of the Rules. Learned counsel refers to Mary v Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction (I.L.R. (1974) 2 Kerala 274) and contends that the petitioner's right for promotion under R.43 Chapter XIVA of the rules is not subject to the claims of any other teacher under R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules. Learned counsel then contends that as the Act and the Rules do not define the words 'promotion', 'grade' and 'catagory', the dictionary meaning of these words are to be taken. In support of this contention, learned counsel refers to page 43 of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition) wherein discussing the 'golden rule' of interpretation it is said: "These called 'golden rule' is really a modification of the literal rule. It was stated in this way by Parke B: "It is a very Useful rule, in the construction of the statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further." If, said Brett L.J . "the inconvenience, is not only great, but what I may call an absurd inconvenience, by reading an enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if you read it in a manner in which it is capable, though not its ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all, there would be reason why you should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical meaning!." Learned counsel then refers to Webster's New International Dictionary wherein the words 'promotion', 'grade' and 'category' are assigned meanings as follows: Table:#1 Learned counsel points out that when a part-time Language Teacher in the grade of Rs 75-130 becomes a full-time Language Teacher in the grade of Rs. 95-190 it can only be promotion. According to the learned counsel, the indication in R.43A and 43B Chapter X1VA of the Rules is also the same. Learned counsel then refers to the Manager S.M.U. P. School v. District Educational Officer (OP No 3976 of 1974) and contends that the grade and scale of pay can only be the same. Learned counsel did not press the contentions raised on the strength of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India at the hearing. 4. Learned Government Pleader contends that the part-time post in which the petitioner was working was there only upto and inclusive of 14 71972 and since on 15 71972 it was not there, the petitioner's posting as full-time teacher can only be a fresh appointment and not a promotion. In the case of a fresh appointment, it is R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules which applies and hence the 5th respondent, the qualified thrown out hand, has to be appointed. As this is what that has been insisted by the orders of the department impugned in this case, they are perfectly legal and no interference is called for in these proceedings. 5. Mr. E. Subramoniam, learned counsel for the 5th respondents, contends that as the fact that the 5th respondent was a full-time Language Teacher (Hindi) having protection under G. O. MS.104/69/Edn. dated 6 31969 is not denied in this case she should get the post in question in view of the above G.O itself. According to the learned counsel, the 5th respondent's continuance in the departmental school is only till a post for her absorption comes into existence in any of the schools under the Corporate Educational Agency. dated 6 31969 is not denied in this case she should get the post in question in view of the above G.O itself. According to the learned counsel, the 5th respondent's continuance in the departmental school is only till a post for her absorption comes into existence in any of the schools under the Corporate Educational Agency. Even if she had no protection, she can very well claim the post under R.51A Chapter XIVA of the Rules. Learned counsel also contends that as the petitioner cannot be considered to be on the staff on 15 7 1972 when the full-time post came into existence, since it was by converting her part-time post into a full-time one, she cannot have any right to the post under R.43 Chapter XIVA of the Rules. 6. Sri. Divakaran Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, points out that an appointment Can be by promotion, transfer or direct recruitment and in this case it was by promotion. Learned counsel also points out that the respondents have no case that on 15 7 1972 when the full-time Language Teacher's (Hindi) post came into existence the petitioner stood relieved from the staff of the school. Learned counsel contends that the direction in the protection G. O dated 6 31969 for re-absorption of thrown out teachers like the 5th respondent cannot in any way help the 5th respondent as the G. O. cannot prevail over statutory rules. Learned counsel has also a contention that Ext. P7 is not a speaking order. 7. R.43 Chapter XIVA of the Rules reads: "43. Subject to R.44 and 45 and considerations of efficiency and any general order that may be issued by the Government vacancies in any higher grade of pay shall be filled up by promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade according to seniority, if such hands are available. Note A teacher in a lower grade of pay in one category of post is eligible for promotion to a higher grade of pay in another category of post provided: (i) he has the prescribed qualifications; and (ii) there is no teacher with the prescribed qualifications in the lower grade of pay of the category of post to which promotions are to be made". Admittedly the post of part-time Language Teacher (Hindi) was on a lower grade of pay than the post of full-time Language Teacher (Hindi). Admittedly the post of part-time Language Teacher (Hindi) was on a lower grade of pay than the post of full-time Language Teacher (Hindi). A part-time Language Teacher (Hindi) falls in one category while a full-time Language Teacher (Hindi) falls in another category as they form separate classes or groups. When a part-time teacher becomes a full-time teacher, the teacher is no doubt raised in position or rank and hence what is involved in that process is a promotion. So, R.43 Chapter XIVA of the Rules governs the transformation of a part-time teacher into a full-time teacher. As the petitioner's rights for the post are under R.43, she has got a better right than the 5th respondent who can claim the post only under rule MA. The direction in the protection G. O. dated 6 31969 cannot in any way further the case of the 5th respondent as the G. O. cannot prevail over statutory rules. When a part-time post is converted into a full-time post, the teacher working in that post cannot be denied the full-time post on the ground that the teacher cannot be considered to be a part-time teacher when the full-time post came into existence by the abolition of the post. He will have claims for promotion to the post just like any other part-time teacher on the staff. If the teacher is the seniormost he will get the full-time post and if not the seniormost will be promoted to the full-time post under R.43 and the teacher concerned will be accommodated against the part-time post which falls vacant by that promotion. So, in any view of the matter, the full-time post in question must go to the petitioner as there is no other part-time teacher in the category on the staff who is senior to the petitioner. 8. In the result, Exts.P1, P5 and P7 are quashed and the petitioner is given a declaration that she is the rightful claimant to the post of full-time Language Teacher (Hindi) created in the staff of the Sivagiri High School, Varkala as per the staff fixation order for the year 1972-73. The Original Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.