JUDGMENT Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J. 1. These two appeals are against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court allowing O.P. No. 1088 of 1971. The controversy agitated in the writ petition was regarding the appointment of a Headmaster in the St. John's High School, Oommannoor, Kottarakara. The vacancy arose during the year 1970-71. The appellant before us (in W.A. No. 165/74) who was the 3rd respondent in the writ petition was appointed Headmaster on the ground that the writ petitioner (1st respondent in W.A. No. 165/74) was unqualified to be appointed, being an untrained hand. The 1st respondent thereupon filed the writ petition challenging the appointment of the appellant. That was allowed by the learned Judge and Exts. P5 and P6 were quashed. The learned Judge directed a fresh consideration and appointment of the Headmaster. Writ Appeal No. 165 of 1974 is by the aggrieved Headmaster, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition; and W.A. No. 208 of 1974 is by the Manager of the School, who was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. 2. The relevant rule, in the light of which eligibility for appointment has to be decided, is R.44-A of Chap. 14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules. The said rule, at the relevant time, in so far as it is material, stood as follows: "44-A. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-r.(1) of R.44, the minimum service qualification for appointment as Headmaster, in Aided complete High Schools/Training Schools shall be twelve years of continuous graduate service with a pass in the test in the Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules." Neither the Kerala Education Act nor the Rules contained any definition or clarification in regard to the term "graduate service". Before the Kerala Education Rules, there was in force in the Travancore - Cochin area of this State, what is called the P.S.S. Scheme which was essentially non statutory in character. With respect to the provisions of that Scheme, the Government had issued Ext. R2 proceedings dated 3rd September 1956 which stated as follows: "2. Before the Kerala Education Rules, there was in force in the Travancore - Cochin area of this State, what is called the P.S.S. Scheme which was essentially non statutory in character. With respect to the provisions of that Scheme, the Government had issued Ext. R2 proceedings dated 3rd September 1956 which stated as follows: "2. Under clause 16 of Appendix 1 of G.P. read as 2nd paper, approved service of a graduate teacher in High School alone is reckoned as qualifying service to be counted for purpose of determining eligibility of a teacher for appointment as Headmaster of a High School, although the term "graduate teacher" as defined under R.3 clause 2 item (x) of the P.S.S. Rules means any teacher who is a graduate and appointed as High School Assistant or as Headmaster of a Training School or as Training School Assistant or as the Headmaster of an incomplete High School or as the Headmaster of a Middle School. Doubts have therefore arisen as to whether service put in by a Graduate Teacher as Headmaster of a Middle School and as Assistant in the Lower Secondary Grade of a High School can be counted towards service qualifying for the post of Headmasters of High Schools. * * * * * * 4. Government have examined the proposals. They are pleased to order that the service put in by a High School Assistant, the Headmaster of Training School, a Training School Assistant and the Headmaster of an incomplete High School and the service put in as Trained Graduate Headmaster of a complete Middle School will be considered as qualifying graduate service for the post of Headmaster of a High School." On and from 1st June 1959, the Kerala Education Act came into force, and the rules were also framed with effect from the said date, under the provisions of the said Act. R.44A of Chap. 14(A) we have already noticed. It was thereafter that Ext. R3 order, G.O. MS. 163/169/ Edn., dated 17th April 1969, was issued. Referring to Ext. R2, it was observed that the term "graduate service" had been defined therein, according to which, in the case of Headmasters of Middle Schools, only trained service can be reckoned as graduate service. 14(A) we have already noticed. It was thereafter that Ext. R3 order, G.O. MS. 163/169/ Edn., dated 17th April 1969, was issued. Referring to Ext. R2, it was observed that the term "graduate service" had been defined therein, according to which, in the case of Headmasters of Middle Schools, only trained service can be reckoned as graduate service. The G.O. proceeded to state: "Government have examined the question in detail and are pleased to order that the untrained service of graduates as Headmasters of Middle Schools prior to 15th October 1957 will be counted as service of graduate teacher as has been done in the case of Graduate Assistants, Headmasters of incomplete school etc. The orders in the Government Proceedings first cited stand modified to that extent." It was in the face of the above clarification issued by the Government that by Ext. P5 order, the appellant's appointment as Headmaster was approved by the District Educational Officer. It was pointed out that the seniormost High School Assistant (the 1st respondent) had continuous service only from 4th June 1958 and that he passed the B. Ed. Degree examination only in April 1960. Hence he had not completed 12 years qualifying service and was not eligible for promotion as Headmaster. In the case of the appellant, it was noted that he had continuous service as graduate teacher from 27th June 1955 and therefore had earned more than 12 years qualifying service for appointment as Headmaster. In the light of these, Ext. P6 order by the Manager followed, appointing the appellant as the Headmaster. 3. The learned Judge took the view that in the light of the provisions in Chap. 14(A), R.44A, there was no scope for a clarification of the term "graduate service" by executive or administrative instructions issued by the Government. With this part of the reasoning of the learned Judge, we cannot agree. Neither the statutory rules nor the Kerala Education Act had defined or explained the term "graduate service". In the absence of such a statutory definition in the rules there was scope for administrative or executive instructions; and in that sense, therefore, the Government was justified in issuing Ext. R3. 4. Next, the learned Judge took the view that even assuming Ext. In the absence of such a statutory definition in the rules there was scope for administrative or executive instructions; and in that sense, therefore, the Government was justified in issuing Ext. R3. 4. Next, the learned Judge took the view that even assuming Ext. R3 had application, the appellant did not have continuous service, but that his service was interrupted in the sense that although from 1955 to 15th October 1957 he could count the untrained service as qualifying service, from and after the said date, i.e., 15th October 1957, training had been imposed compulsorily for appointment as Headmaster; with the result, that the subsequent period of the appellant could not count as qualifying service as he got trained only in 1960. In point of fact, this seems to be opposed to what is stated in Ext. P5, which we have already noticed. , In the counter affidavit, in paragraph 4, sworn to by the District Educational Officer, the 1st respondent in the Original Petition, it was stated: "4. During the year 1970-71 the Manager did not appoint the petitioner as Headmaster on the ground that he has not completed 12 years graduate service. Hence the Manager sought orders to appoint a qualified hand as Headmaster of his school. Accordingly he advertised the vacancy in the newspapers and the 3rd respondent working as an U.S.A. in another aided school applied for the post. He was fully qualified to be appointed as Headmaster of a complete High School. Since he was working under another management, he obtained inter management transfer as per rules Hand 13 of Chap. 14(A), K.E.R. and the District Educational Officer accorded sanction as per proceedings dated 24th March 1971." As against this, the submissions in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit in regard to the 1st respondent run thus: "5. It is submitted that Ext. P2(a) was issued by the Director of Public Instruction on the basis of certain reports furnished by the District Educational Officer, the 1st respondent. Subsequent to Ext. P2 (a) a clarification was sought from the Director of Public Instruction and he informed the 1st respondent by letter C2-8051/71/ L. Dis., dated 1st February 1971 that the petitioner had qualified service only from 5th June 1960, the date on which he passed the B. Ed. examination. A copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R1. examination. A copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R1. So it is submitted that Ext. P2(a) was superseded by Ext. R1 letter." The matter was further clarified in a rejoinder affidavit filed again by the District Educational Officer and dated 10th January 1974. In paragraph 3 of this affidavit it was definitely averred that the writ petitioner's statement that the untrained service of the appellant before 4th June 1960 could not count for qualified service is not correct. In that context it was recalled that training was compulsory from 15th October 1957; that the service of the petitioner commenced only after the said date, and that therefore his untrained service could not be treated as qualifying service. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the rejoinder affidavit, the service history of the appellant and the 1st respondent (in W.A. No. 165/74) were thus recorded: "4. The third respondent Sri C. K. George entered service on 27th June 1955. In the case of teachers who entered service prior to 15th October 1957, they can be considered as fully qualified even though they were untrained. Hence he can count his entire service as fully qualified and so he has completed his qualified service on 27th June 1967. 5. Sri Koruthu, the petitioner began his continuous service only on 4th June 1958 i.e. after 15th October 1957. Hence his untrained service cannot be considered as qualified for purpose of posting as Headmaster. As such he was not eligible for appointment as Headmaster in the light of R.44A, Chap. 14(A), Kerala Education Rules. The statement of the petitioner that R.13 of Chap. 14(A) prohibits the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Headmaster has no meaning inasmuch as the transfer of the 3rd respondent is as Headmaster of the School and not as High School Assistant." 5. These facts naturally led us guessing as to what exactly was the sanctity of the date 15th October 1957 and the nature of the proceedings if any, on the said date. In order to ascertain the same, and make it available to this Court, we held over the hearing from yesterday to today. These facts naturally led us guessing as to what exactly was the sanctity of the date 15th October 1957 and the nature of the proceedings if any, on the said date. In order to ascertain the same, and make it available to this Court, we held over the hearing from yesterday to today. The learned Government Pleader made available to us a copy of the Government Proceedings dated 15th October 1957 regarding Teachers' Training Institutions and selection for training, seen to have been issued by order of the Governor and vouched (as the copy showed) by the signature of the Assistant Secretary, Education and Health Department (Education C. Special) -- Vide Order Ed. (C. Special) 1-20609/57/EHD., dated 15th October 1957. It is enough if we extract paragraphs 4 and 5 of the above proceedings: "4. There are many trained undergraduates remaining unemployed now. There are also a number of untrained hands in employment as teachers in Departmental and private schools. In order to enable the unemployed trained personnel to be absorbed as teachers and to reduce the number of untrained hands in service as teachers, training facilities for the next five years will be confined mostly to untrained hands already in service. 5. The Government direct that in future no untrained teacher should be recruited in any school in this State." The above proceedings make it clear beyond doubt that it is to have application only to appointees in future, i.e., those appointed after 15th October 1957. The appellant does not belong to that category, and there is nothing to show how his service duly and properly commenced, and his qualifying service, became interrupted or converted to something other than that by the issuance of the proceedings, dated 15th October 1957, which had no retrospective operation. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge that even assuming Exts. R2 and R3 had application, the appellant's service was an interrupted service in so far as he was an untrained hand from 15th October 1957 till he acquired training qualification in April 1960. 6. We may also observe that there is enough authority to warrant the issuance of a clarificatory proceeding such as Ext. R3. R2 and R3 had application, the appellant's service was an interrupted service in so far as he was an untrained hand from 15th October 1957 till he acquired training qualification in April 1960. 6. We may also observe that there is enough authority to warrant the issuance of a clarificatory proceeding such as Ext. R3. Chap.14(A), R.8(2) of the Kerala Education Rules provides for approval of the appointment if the same is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rule and the orders issued by the Government or the Director from time to time. Again R.15 of the same Chapter provides for teachers being admitted to duty or relieved from duty according to the directions of the Manager, the same being in accordance with the provisions of the Education Act and the rules thereunder and any other orders issued by the Government or the Department in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder. The provisions of Ext. R3 cannot be said to be not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules. In that sense, therefore, Ext. R3 clarification was binding on the persons concerned. 7. Whichever way viewed, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Judge. In the result, we allow these Writ Appeals and set aside the order of the learned Judge, direct that O.P. No. 1088 of 1971, will stand dismissed. We make no order as to costs.