JUDGMENT V. Khalid, J. 1. These Writ Petitions involve a common question of law and are therefore being disposed of by a common judgment. In O.P. No, 119/76 there are four petitioners. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 were appointed as Headmasters respectively on 17th February 1955, 5th October 1956 and 6th May 1955. The second petitioner was appointed as teacher on 5th July 1956. In O. P. No. 3923/76 the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster on 1st November 1954. In O.P. No. 3946/76 the petitioner was appointed as teacher on 23rd April 1956. In O.P. No. 3987/76 the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster on 4th November 1955. In O.P. No. 4354/75 the first petitioner was appointed as Headmaster on 23rd January 1956, the second petitioner on 25th September 1954, the third petitioner on 27th December 1954, the fourth petitioner on 3rd October 1955, the fifth petitioner on 19th March 1956 and the sixth petitioner on 27th December 1954. All the petitioners except the petitioners in O.P. No. 4354/75 were appointed under the Malabar District Board and the Petitioner in O.P. 4354/75 were appointed under the South Kanara District Board. All the petitioners were appointed in schools that are called single teacher schools, 2. The petitioners were appointed as untrained Headmasters under the "Relief of educated unemployed" scheme sponsored by the Madras Government during the first five year plan. All the District Board Schools were taken over by Government with effect from 1st October 1957 and therefore the former District Board teachers including single teacher school teachers became Government employees from 1st October 1957. With the coming into force of the Kerala Panchayats Act. 32 of 1960, the Madras District Boards Act, 1920, the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 etc. were repealed by section 151. Under S.151(3) all the employees of the District Board, became on the repeal of the Madras District Boards Act, employees of the Government, subject to such conditions of service as the Government may fix. 3. Admittedly the writ petitioners had no training qualifications when they were appointed. Their appointments were under peculiar circumstances. They were appointed as untrained teachers and they continued to be so when these schools were taken by the Government. The question is whether they can, by virtue of this special benefit extended to them, press their claim for seniority against those who had the necessary qualifications when appointed. Their appointments were under peculiar circumstances. They were appointed as untrained teachers and they continued to be so when these schools were taken by the Government. The question is whether they can, by virtue of this special benefit extended to them, press their claim for seniority against those who had the necessary qualifications when appointed. The counsel for the State would contend that the petitioners claim cannot be sustained since all of them were untrained teachers. On the other hand the petitioners counsel would contend that there are sufficient materials in the case to indicate that the Government had accepted the period of service of the untrained teachers appointed prior to 10th April 1958 for reckoning their seniority. 4. It is submitted that by virtue of the operation of S.151(3), the petitioners became Government servants automatically. That being so, their service conditions should be governed by the provisions contained in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. Under R.27 seniority is to be fixed with reference to the date of first appointment or the date of advice by the Public Service Commission as the case may be. Appointment to a service is defined in R.2(1), Part I of the K.S.S.R. as the date on which he discharges the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation etc. In the case of the petitioners by virtue of the operation of S.151(3) they should be deemed to have been appointed to the service on the date of their first appointment the respective dates being given in the petition and also indicated above. The scope of R.2(1), Part I has been clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Joseph v. State of Kerala 1972 KLT 45 at page 46 in paragraph 4. 5. The Government Pleader had two contentions against the claim by the petitioners. According to him S.151(3) contains a condition that the employees of the District Board shall be deemed to be the employees of the Government only subject to such conditions of service as the Government may fix. It is therefore contended that, by their becoming Government servant by the operation of S.151(3), the petitioners do not automatically get the benefits that are available to the ordinary Government servants. It is therefore contended that, by their becoming Government servant by the operation of S.151(3), the petitioners do not automatically get the benefits that are available to the ordinary Government servants. According to him conditions have been prescribed and if those conditions are looked into, it will be evident that the petitioners are not entitled for the seniority that they claim. He places reliance on Ext. P3 in O.P. No. 119/76. Ext. P3 deals with principles for preparing the seniority list of P.D. Teachers as on 31st December 1965. He strongly relies on the second clause which deals with the State wise recruits appointed prior to 10th April 1958 which lays down that for State wise recruits appointed prior to 10th April 1958, the date of commencement of continuous qualifying service in each grade will be taken as the criterian, for fixing the seniority list. It is contended that qualifying service means service with requisite qualifications which in this case should be the training qualification also. 6. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit in O.P. 119 of 1976, it is stated that the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules came into force only in the year 1958 and that it cannot be made applicable to those teachers appointed by the former Malabar District Board prior to 1st October 1957. This contention is to overcome the difficulty caused by R.27. 7. The statement of fact contained in paragraph 17 does not appear to be correct since in rule 1 in Part II, it is specifically provided that the rules in this part shall apply to all State and Subordinate Services and the holders of all posts, whether temporary or permanent in any such service, appointed thereto before, or after the date on which these rules come into force. Therefore the contention that the present petitioners who were appointed prior to 1957 cannot invoke R.27 has to fail. This principle finds acceptance in paragraph 4 of the judgment in Joseph v. State of Kerala 1972 KLT 45 . 8. Then the question is whether the petitioners should have the requisite training qualification to claim continuous service. This contention in another form is seen stated in paragraph 18. It is stated that untrained candidates were recruited by the P.S.C. from Backward and Scheduled Castes after 10th April 1958 for the post of primary school teachers. 8. Then the question is whether the petitioners should have the requisite training qualification to claim continuous service. This contention in another form is seen stated in paragraph 18. It is stated that untrained candidates were recruited by the P.S.C. from Backward and Scheduled Castes after 10th April 1958 for the post of primary school teachers. For the purpose of seniority, the date of the letter of advice and rank number of the P.S.C. is to be taken into account. But this cannot apply to the petitioners before me because they were appointed prior to 10th April 1958. Therefore, the rule that should govern the petitioners is R.27 which clearly lays down the date for considering the seniority to be the date of first appointment. Sub-clause (ii) of clause 4 of Ext. P3 was also relied upon by the State counsel. This cannot help him because the first paragraph of clause 4 deals with District wise recruits appointed after 10th April 1958. For persons appointed after 10th April 1958 in single teacher schools training qualification is insisted upon. But teachers appointed prior to 10th April 1958, sub-clause (ii) of clause 4 has no application. Therefore the petitions are not hit by the clause. 9. I do not think it necessary in those circumstances to refer to the various exhibits produced in the connected writ petitions. According to me these petitions could be disposed of on the short ground that R.27 should govern the seniority of the petitioners. No Government Order stipulating conditions other than the one laid down in R.27 has been placed before means is provided in S.151(3). Ext. P3 is only a memo issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Kozhikode. Of course the State counsel submits that there is reference to a Government Order No. 32/65, dated 13th January" 1965. This Government Order instead of helping the State is helpful to the petitioners. In the absence of any other rule having the force of law sufficient to override the effect of R.27, 27 should prevail. Therefore in my judgment the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions so far as the seniority is concerned. 10. These writ petitions are allowed and Exts. P6 and P7 in O.P. No. 119 of 1976, Ext. P14 in O.P. No. 3923/76, Ext. 14 in O.P. No. 3946/76, Ext. P17 in O.P. No. 3987/76 and Exts. Therefore in my judgment the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions so far as the seniority is concerned. 10. These writ petitions are allowed and Exts. P6 and P7 in O.P. No. 119 of 1976, Ext. P14 in O.P. No. 3923/76, Ext. 14 in O.P. No. 3946/76, Ext. P17 in O.P. No. 3987/76 and Exts. P9 and P11 in O.P. No. 4354/75 are quashed. The petitioners will be entitled to get their seniority restored as claimed by them. 11. Those petitioners who were first appointed as Headmasters claimed that they should be posted as Headmasters. This cannot be straightaway ordered. They were designated as Headmasters by the mere accident of their being posted in the single teacher institutions. Therefore, whether any of the petitioners should be given the Headmaster's post will be considered by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Kozhikode while refixing the seniority, and to assign them such posts if they are found entitled to it in law. The Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Kozhikode, is directed to refix the seniority list in confirmity with the directions given above. The parties are directed to bear their costs.