JUDGMENT Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. We do not find sufficient reason to disturb the judgment of the learned Judge, who allowed O.P. No. 1812 of 1975, filed to quash Ext. P-2 order of the Government and directed that the writ petitioner is entitled to count his seniority with reference to his continuous service in the grade of High school Assistants in accordance with R.37 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher on 30th June 1952 and promoted as a Higher Grade Language Teacher on 28th November 1952. He acquired the B.A. degree in 1956, the B. Ed. degree in 1960 and the M. A. degree in 1964. By G.O. Rt. No. 3151/Edn., dated 8th November 1966, the Higher and Lower Grade Language Teachers were redesignated as High School Assistants (Language). In Chap.23, R.3 of the Kerala Education Rules, the designations for the various posts have been specified. The Headmaster is seen as one category, the High School Assistants is seen as a 2nd category, made up of: (1) High School Assistants (Language); (2) Upper Primary School Assistant; (3) Language teacher, and so on. The learned Government pleader stressed that a dichotomy was seen between the High School Assistants (Language) and the other generic category of High School Assistants. This it was said, would justify their being counted as two separate units and also the practice in the Department of keeping two separate seniority lists for the two separate posts. The writ petitioner was ranked No. 1 in the list of Language Teachers. After his graduation, his rank was No. 7 in the list of graduate teachers or High School Assistants. There was a circular of the Government which required the Language Teachers to be given an option either to continue as Language Teachers or to be included in the list of Graduate Teachers. The option had to be exercised on or before 30th June 1967; and once exercised, was to be final. The petitioner is stated to have opted on 15th May 1967 to remain in the list of Language Teachers. His name was therefore deleted from the list of graduate teachers from 1st September 1959. The petitioner filed a representation to reckon his length of service as Hindi Teacher in counting his seniority as High School Assistant. The petitioner is stated to have opted on 15th May 1967 to remain in the list of Language Teachers. His name was therefore deleted from the list of graduate teachers from 1st September 1959. The petitioner filed a representation to reckon his length of service as Hindi Teacher in counting his seniority as High School Assistant. The representation was dated 29th November 1971 as seen from the order thereof viz., Ext. P-2 by which it was rejected. In brief, the Government took the view that there was no ground to disturb the practice of assigning seniority and rank among other High School Assistants, based on the length of graduate service. The learned Judge disagreed and quashed Ext. P-2. The Government has appealed. 3. We think the view taken by the learned Judge is correct. Chap.14A R.37(1) provides: "37. (1) Seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post." The question therefore is how the "grade in unit" requirement is to be applied, and whether it can be fitted at all to the controversy debated herein. The learned Government pleader would submit that the result of the proceedings G.O., dated 8th November 1966 and the circular issued by the Government following the same, and the practice of maintaining separate seniority lists in respect of High School Assistants and the Language Teachers would show that they were treated as separate units and therefore the position would be governed by Chap.23 R.3 of the K.E.R. We have already referred to this Rule which merely designated the various categories of teachers. Beyond that, it does not help to demarcate them as units. The learned Government pleader then referred to Chap.26, R.2 which provides: "2. There shall be two scales of pay for High School Assistants including H.S. As. (Languages) of aided schools as in the case of High School Assistants including High School Assistants (Languages) in Government Schools. Beyond that, it does not help to demarcate them as units. The learned Government pleader then referred to Chap.26, R.2 which provides: "2. There shall be two scales of pay for High School Assistants including H.S. As. (Languages) of aided schools as in the case of High School Assistants including High School Assistants (Languages) in Government Schools. Those who have completed 12 years of continuous service as High School Assistants shall be given the higher scale of pay and the other shall be given the lower scale of pay." We do not think even this rule is of any assistant for the put pose of determining or deciding whether the two posts that we are concerned with in this case can be regarded as two separate grades or units. 4. Sri Sivaraman Nair, counsel for the respondent referred us, on the other hand, to Chap.14A, R.37 to which we have already referred. He also invited our attention to Chap.26 and to the former R.6 of the said Chapter which was omitted by G.O. (P) 146/71, dated 22nd October 1971 consequent on the integration of pay scales by Chap.26, R.2. The omitted Rule reads as follows: "6. Language teachers of High Schools who have the graduate qualification or other qualification declared by Government to be equal to it, shall be treated on the same footing as other graduate teachers and shall be included in the list of graduate teachers for fixing the number of first grade posts for each aided school or for all schools under a single educational agency. Other language teachers for High Schools shall be eligible for the second grade, if trained". The omitted rule is quite significant in stating that the language teachers shall be declared to be equal to, and are liable to be treated as on the same footing as, other graduate teachers. It was after the deletion of this Rule that the writ petitioner filed his representation which was dealt with by Ext. P-2. Ext. P-2 shows that the representation was filed on 29th November 1971. The Government had examined the representation and rejected it. The learned judge quashed Ext. P-2, following the judgment in W. A. 318 of 1975. 5. In W. A. No. 318 of 1975 a similar question concerning U.P.S. Assistants and language teachers fell to be considered. P-2. Ext. P-2 shows that the representation was filed on 29th November 1971. The Government had examined the representation and rejected it. The learned judge quashed Ext. P-2, following the judgment in W. A. 318 of 1975. 5. In W. A. No. 318 of 1975 a similar question concerning U.P.S. Assistants and language teachers fell to be considered. The writ appeal was against the judgment of Eradi, J. in O.P. 3976 of 1974. The learned Judge stated that R.37 provides for seniority only in a grade and not in a category, and, as language teachers and U.P. Assistants are placed on the same grade, length of continuous service should include the totality of service, whether as Language Teacher or as U.P.S.A., subject to the incumbent being qualified for the post. On appeal, the Division Bench concurred with the view expressed by the learned Judge that inter se seniority of two teachers whether they are U.P. Assistants or Language Teachers will have to be determined with reference to the length of their continuous service in the same grade. We think the same principle has application here also. The learned Judge was right in following the principle of W.A. 318 of 1975. We affirm the judgment of the learned Judge and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.