Judgment :- 1. The question arising for consideration in this appeal is who as between respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was entitled to preference in the matter of reappointment to the post of a High School Assistant (Hindi) that arose in an aided High School managed by the appellant. Admittedly, both the competing claimants, namely respondents Nos. 3 and 4, have put in previous approved service in the school as Hindi Teacher and are therefore entitled to the benefit conferred by R.51A of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules. The said rule as it originally stood did not contain any indication as to the principle to be adopted when two or more persons are found to have preferential claims for reappointment to a vacancy arising in the same school. Under those circumstances a Division Bench of this court held in Mary Oomman v. Manager, M.G.M. School, Kuruppampady,1973 KLT. 538, that since the rule did not provide for any priority as between persons who are found to entitle to the benefit of its provisions there is no fetter on the right of the Manager to choose and appoint any one from amongst the persons who are found to have a right to preference under the said rule (rule 51A.) This, position has now undergone a change by reason of the amendment made in R.51A as per a notification dated 4-7-1972 published in the Kerala gazette dated 18-7-1972. By that amendment the following Note was added in R.51A: "If there are more than one claimant under this rule the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointment is the same, then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the elder being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to the requirements of subjects as far as High Schools are concerned." Admittedly, the vacancy in question arose in the appellant's school only long subsequent to the introduction of the said Note in R.51A. Based on the rule of priority laid down in the said Note the District Educational Officer held that the 3rd respondent who had worked in the school from 2-9-1970 to 24-11-1970 was entitled to preference over the 4th respondent who had been appointed temporarily as Hindi Teacher in the school only for the period from 4-1-1972 to 29-3-1972. Based on the rule of priority laid down in the said Note the District Educational Officer held that the 3rd respondent who had worked in the school from 2-9-1970 to 24-11-1970 was entitled to preference over the 4th respondent who had been appointed temporarily as Hindi Teacher in the school only for the period from 4-1-1972 to 29-3-1972. In this view, by his order Ext. P1 dated 6-9-1973 the District Educational Officer refused to approve the action taken by the Manager to appoint the 4th respondent in the vacancy of Hindi Teacher that arose in 1973-74. That order was confirmed by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Calicut as per his proceedings evidenced by Ext.P3 dated 18-12-1973. The validity of Exts. P1 and P3 were challenged by the Manager of the school by filing the writ petition O.P.No.245 of 1974 out of which this appeal has arisen. The learned single judge dismissed that writ petition holding that in the light of the amended provision in R.51A the 3rd respondent was entitled to preference for appointment to the vacancy in question and that hence the orders Exts. P3 and P4 did not call for any interference. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended before us that the Note added to R.51A as per the amendment introduced by the notification dated 4-7-1972 cannot control the ambit of the provision contained in the body of the rule and in as much as that provision has been interpreted by this court as not fettering the right of the Manager to freely pick and choose as between persons who had acquired a claim for preference under R.51A the action taken by the Manager in exercising the said right and in appointing the 4th respondent in the exercise of the said right of choice recognised by this court ought not to have been interfered with by the District Educational Officer or by the Regional Deputy Director. The same argument was advanced before us on behalf of the 4th respondent who vigorously supported the contentions advanced by the appellant. We do not, however, find it possible to accept the said contention. The same argument was advanced before us on behalf of the 4th respondent who vigorously supported the contentions advanced by the appellant. We do not, however, find it possible to accept the said contention. What was done by the notification dated 4-7-1972 was to amend R.51A in the exercise of the rule-making power that has been conferred by the Act on the State Government and the Note that has been added by that amendment now forms an integral part of R.51A. The provision contained in the Note has therefore as much vigour, vitality and force as the provision contained in the main body of the rule itself. We are no doubt aware of instances where executive instructions ie the shape of notes are often found incorporated in manuals underneath the statutory rules. Such instructions do not have any legislative sanction and cannot therefore control the scope or operation of the rule. But, where the rule itself has been amended by adding an explanatory note its scope has necessarily to be judged in the light of the clarification given by the rule-making body in the note which has been incorporated with obvious intent to clear up any possible ambiguity existing in the main body of the rule or to fill up any lacuna or gap. That such a purpose can be legitimately discharged by a note added to a rule is now placed beyond doubt by the following observation of the Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR. 1975 SC. 1487 at pp. 1490 and 1491: "The function of the notes is to provide procedure and to control discretion. The real purpose of the notes is that when rules are silent the notes will fill up gaps notes which are appended to rules are of aid not only in applying the rules but also in interpreting the true import of the rules In the present case, the notes are part of the rules because they are for the guidance of the authorities. They are not inconsistent with the rules but are intended to fill up gaps where the rules are silent." As pointed out by this Court in Mary Oomman v. Manager, M.G.M. School, Kuruppampady, 1973 KLT. They are not inconsistent with the rules but are intended to fill up gaps where the rules are silent." As pointed out by this Court in Mary Oomman v. Manager, M.G.M. School, Kuruppampady, 1973 KLT. 538, R.51A as originally stood was silent on the vital aspect as to the principle to be followed when there is a plurality of persons entitled to the benefit of R.51A in respect of the same vacancy arising in a school. That gap has been filled up by the rule-making authority by adding the Note wherein the principle to be followed for assignment of priorities as between several claimants is laid down. The decision rendered by this court on the basis of the unamended provision of R.51A can no longer be relied on by the appellant for the simple reason that the rule itself has subsequently undergone a material alteration. The learned single judge was, in our opinion, perfectly right in holding that the principle laid down in the Note to R.51A governs this case and that the view taken by the District Educational Officer and the Regional Deputy Director in the impugned orders that the 3rd respondent is the legitimate claimant for the post in question did not call for any interference. 3. We accordingly confirm the judgment of the learned single judge and dismiss this writ appeal. The parties will bear their respective costs. Dismissed.