JUDGMENT Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. We think the learned Judge was right and no interference is called for with his judgment. The petitioner appellant was a Hindi Teacher appointed on 13th July 1965 in a leave vacancy which continued till 30th March 1966. During the academic year 1972-73, there was an additional vacancy in which the 3rd respondent was appointed as a teacher. She was admittedly unqualified during the academic year 1965-66 when the petitioner appellant was appointed. But she became qualified by the year 1972-73 when she was appointed as noticed. She staked her claim under R.43 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules and the petitioner appellant staked his claim under R.51A of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules. The learned Judge held that R.43 prevails over R.51A and that accordingly the petitioner appellant had no superior claim over the 3rd respondent. We may extract the two rules viz., R.43 and R.51 A of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. "43. Subject to R.44 and 45 and considerations of efficiency and any general order that may be issued by the Government, vacancies in any higher grade of pay shall be filled up by promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade according to seniority, if such hands are available. Note.-- A teacher in a lower grade of pay in one category of post is eligible for promotion to a higher grade of pay in another category of post provided: (i) he has the prescribed qualification; and (ii) there is no teacher with the prescribed qualifications in the lower grade of pay of the category of post to which promotions are to be made. * * * * 51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per R.49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency, provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. Note.-- 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 older being given first preference. Note.-- 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 older being given first preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be given to requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under sub-r.(4) of R.1 as far as High Schools are concerned." It seems to us that R.43 provides the general rule for filling up vacancies by promotion to a higher grade. It enacts the general principle that promotion to higher grade must be by qualified hands drawn from the lower grade. But this may not always be possible owing to want of qualified hands in the lower grade to fill up the posts by promotion to the higher grade; in which event, stop gap arrangements may well have to be made by promoting unqualified persons or otherwise making promotions. It is to meet such contingencies and to confer some limited and qualified right on persons so appointed that R.51A seems to have been enacted. At any rate, that seems to be one of the objects and purposes meant to be served by the rule. In such circumstances it seems to us inconceivable and illogical to allow R.51A to override the provisions of R.43; and we are not prepared to put such an interpretation which will make R.51A paramount and R.43 subordinate in the scheme of the Kerala Education Rules. 2. Quite apart from principle, on the authorities, the position seems to have been well settled. In T. O. Mary's case (ILR 1974 (2) Ker. 274) our learned brother Eradi, J. had occasion to consider the scope and the inter relationship between the two rules. The learned Judge observed: "3. R.43 and 51A occurring in the same Chapter of the Kerala Education Rules both deal with the question of conferment of right of preference on certain types of personnel in the matter of filling up of vacancies arising in the schools and there is a certain amount of overlapping of the provisions of the two rules. While R.43 found a place in the rules as originally promulgated with effect from 1st June 1959, R.51A has been introduced into the chapter by a subsequent amendment with effect from 12th July 1966. While R.43 found a place in the rules as originally promulgated with effect from 1st June 1959, R.51A has been introduced into the chapter by a subsequent amendment with effect from 12th July 1966. It is now necessary at this juncture to extract the provisions of the two rules. * * * * It is a fundamental principle of interpretation of statutes inclusive of subordinate legislation that the attempt of the court should be, as far as possible, to harmonise the different provisions contained in the statute or in the rule so long as it is possible to achieve the same without doing violence to the language used by the legislature or by the rule making authority. A construction which leads to a direct conflict between different provisions should; as far as possible, be avoided. If the said principle is kept in mind I think the correct way of interpreting and reconciling R.43 and 51A is to limit the applicability of R.51A to cases where vacancies arising in the school are to be filled up otherwise than by promotion of personnel already in the service of the school, i.e., by recruiting persons from outside. Thus, on this interpretation, R.51A will come into operation in the matter of filling up vacancies of posts in a higher grade only when no qualified hands are available in the lower grade in the institution and where consequently the vacancies have to be filled up by recruitment of persons from outside. In such a case a person who has put in a previous temporary service in the school will be preferred over everyone else in the matter of filling up a vacancy by direct recruitment. If R.51A is to be understood as conferring a right on an outsider to be appointed to a vacancy in a higher grade merely on the ground of his having acted in the school on a previous occasion when there was no qualified hand in the lower grade, the provisions of R.43 will be rendered entirely nugatory. If R.51A is to be understood as conferring a right on an outsider to be appointed to a vacancy in a higher grade merely on the ground of his having acted in the school on a previous occasion when there was no qualified hand in the lower grade, the provisions of R.43 will be rendered entirely nugatory. Such an interpretation will also leave the door open for misuse of the provisions of R.51A by the manager since it will be possible for him to circumvent the mandatory terms of R.43 by merely appointing an outsider in a short term vacancy which may even be deliberately created by inducing a higher grade teacher to take leave at a time when the person working in a lower grade is not yet fully qualified. By the said device the teacher in the lower grade can be effectively deprived of the benefit conferred by R.43 and divested of all prospects of promotion, even though such person may have acquired the requisite qualifications by the time a permanent vacancy arises in the school. I do not think that this was the intention of the rule making authority when it framed R.51A." W. A. No. 217 of 1974 against the said judgment was dismissed in limine. This is noticed in the Division Bench judgment in 1973 K.L. J. 235 which after noticing the decision in T.O. Mary's case (ILR 1974 (2) Ker. 274) has extended the principle settled thereby, and also followed the said principle to a case of conflict between R.51A of Chap.14(A) and R.7 of Chap.24(B). Our learned brother Narendran, J. in Suseela v. The Manager, Sreenarayana Dharmasangam School and others ( 1976 KLT 670 ) and Vadakkel, J. in O.P. No. 3310 of 1975 (reported in 1976 KLN 42) also have taken the same view. These decisions support the conclusion that we have formed and reached in regard to the scope and the operation of the Rules. 3. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the observations of Raman Nayar, C. J. in Sarojini v. The Assistant Educational Officer, Mullasserry (ILR 1972 (1) Ker. 266) where the learned Judge has made certain observations in regard to the accrual of a title on the incumbent based on his appointment to the post. 3. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the observations of Raman Nayar, C. J. in Sarojini v. The Assistant Educational Officer, Mullasserry (ILR 1972 (1) Ker. 266) where the learned Judge has made certain observations in regard to the accrual of a title on the incumbent based on his appointment to the post. We do not understand these observations as in any way laying down that a right accrues to the person appointed temporarily from the date of the appointment and that therefore R.51A of Chap.14(A) should prevail over R.43 of the said Chapter. The principle and the scope of the decisions which we have noticed supra directly support the view that we have taken in this case. 4. We dismiss the writ appeal, in the circumstances, without costs.