JUDGMENT Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J. 1. We think the learned Judge was right in the view that he took in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant is an Upper Primary School Assistant in the Sri Rama Aided Upper Primary School, Kubanoor of which the 1st respondent was the Manager, and the 4th respondent, the rival teacher. The rivalry between the petitioner and the 4th respondent was for the appointment of the Headmaster of the school which fell vacant from 30th March 1972. The service history of the appellant and the 4th respondent to the extent relevant is as follows:-- The 4th respondent is a graduate having passed the B. A. Degree examination on 30th March, 1966 and the B.Ed. on 30th March, 1968; the appellant graduated on 30th September 1968 and passed B.Ed. on 30th March, 1970. The minimum qualifications for headmastership is a pass in the S.S.L.C. with T.T.C. The appointment is governed directly and intimately by R.45 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules. For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to read also R.44. We shall quote R.44 to the extent to which it is relevant, and R.45: "44(1) Appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority. The manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the Rules laid down in the matter. A teacher if he is aggrieved by such appointment will have the right of appeal to the Department. * * * * 45. Subject to R.44, when the post of Headmaster of complete U.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U.P. School becomes a complete U.P. School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. If there is a graduate teacher with B. Ed. or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching after graduation, he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the school or schools under the same Educational Agency, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. qualification may be appointed". 2. R.44 sanctions the principle that the appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the school or schools under the same Educational Agency, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. qualification may be appointed". 2. R.44 sanctions the principle that the appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority. It is subject to this general principle that R.45 provides for the mode or manner of appointment of a Headmaster of a complete Upper Primary School. R.45 can be analysed into three sections or parts. The first part provides for the filling up of the post from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. The second part is what we are intimately concerned with and it is on the construction and scope of that part of the rule that the decision of the case must be rested: That part enacts that if there is a graduate teacher with B. Ed. or other equivalent qualification, and who has got the minimum experience of five years in teaching after graduation, he may be appointed if his service is at least one half of the service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher. The third part of the rule provides that If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the school or schools under the same Educational Agency, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T .T. C. qualification may be appointed, Concentrating attention on the second part of the rule, counsel for the appellant would contend that that has application only in the case of a contest between graduates and non graduates. This, meaning was sought to be spelt out by emphasising the use of the expression 'graduate' in singular in the relevant part of the rule and also by expressing, what counsel for the appellant would call, anomalies that might otherwise result. Giving the matter our careful consideration, we think the learned judge is right in rejecting this contention and in holding that the second part of the rule has application even in the case of a contest as between two graduate teachers, as is the position disclosed in the instant case. Giving the matter our careful consideration, we think the learned judge is right in rejecting this contention and in holding that the second part of the rule has application even in the case of a contest as between two graduate teachers, as is the position disclosed in the instant case. In the second part of the rule, the contest can well be between several graduates, the emphasis being on graduation with the training qualification together with the minimum of five years experience in teaching after graduation. So understood, we do not see any ground to restrict the content of that part of the rule to a case of contest between graduates and non graduates alone and not to a case of contest between two or more graduate teachers, To so restrict this part of the rule would, it appears to us, be to put an artificial interpretation on the rule. On the other hand, to apply it even to a case of contest between graduate teachers possessing the training qualification and regulate their claims on the length of teaching experience seems to be to conform to the rule of seniority enacted by R.44 subject to which R.45 is to be understood. This interpretation receives some confirmation from the language used in the third or the last part of the said rule, which speaks of the absence of graduate teachers (in the plural) with the aforesaid qualification and service implying thereby that the second part of the rule takes in a plurality of graduate teachers. We find no force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that the second part of the rule must be confined to a case of contest between graduate and non graduate teachers, 3. Counsel for the appellant contended that even if the interpretation that we have adopted is to be placed on R.45, the orders impugned (Exts. P2, P4 and P6), which held against the appellant's claims and found that the 4th respondent was entitled to be appointed as headmaster have not considered the question whether the 4th respondent satisfied the requirement of having at least one half of the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the matter requires investigation. We do not think it does. In Ext. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the matter requires investigation. We do not think it does. In Ext. P2 order the first respondent manager had found that the 4th respondent was entitled to be appointed as headmaster under R.45. Against the said order, Ext. P3 appeal was filed before the Assistant Educational Officer. That raised the point that the 4th respondent lacked at least one half of the experience of the seniormost undergraduate teacher, as follows, in paragraph 2: "He does not possess service equal to half the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher. He worked as supernumerary teacher from July 1964 to September 1969." The matter was not dealt with by Ext. P4 order of the Educational Officer; nor was the point either pointedly raised in Ext. P5 memo of revision, or dealt with in Ext. P6 order passed thereon. Counsel for the respondents also satisfied us with respect to Ext. P1 filed by the 4th respondent that there is no substance in this point. We dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.