Judgment :- 1. Two questions have been debated in this appeal; (1) whether the 4 years of untrained service of the writ-petitioner included in his total service of 16 years will count for getting the grade of Departmental Head-master and (2) whether the period of training between 10-7-1959 to 4-4-1960 can be counted for the same purpose. The learned judge held in favour of the petitioner. The State has therefore filed this appeal. 2. The writ-petitioner at the time of the filing of the writ petition was working as Headmaster, Infant Jesus High School, Vadayar, Vaikom. He was appointed as High School Assistant as early as in 1956. He was a graduate; but did not have the training qualification in the sense that he had not obtained the B. Ed. Degree He was sent for training only on 10-71959 and completed the training on 5 41960 and rejoined duty on 5-51960.On 25-6-1968 he was appointed as a Ist Grade High School Assistant. He was appointed Headmaster of an aided High School on 26-7-1971. On 25-6-1972, having completed 16 years of service as graduate-teacher he made Ext. P4 representation to the 4th Respondent, the District Educational Officer, requesting fixation of his pay as Headmaster in terms of Chap.26, R.3, with effect from 25-6-1972. This was rejected (vide Ext, P5). The ground for rejection was that his untrained service cannot count in computing the total length of service. This order was confirmed by Ext. P7 order of the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Calicut, and further by Ext. P11 order of the Government. These were the orders sought to be quashed. 3. The statutory provision on the basis of which the claim is to be examined is Chap.26, R.3. That Rule reads: "3. The Headmaster of an Aided complete Secondary School/Training School shall be given the Departmental Headmaster's scale of pay only if he has put in a minimum of 16 years of continuous service as graduate teacher in schools recognised by the Department. That Rule reads: "3. The Headmaster of an Aided complete Secondary School/Training School shall be given the Departmental Headmaster's scale of pay only if he has put in a minimum of 16 years of continuous service as graduate teacher in schools recognised by the Department. Those Headmasters with a minimum continuous qualifying service of 12 years as graduate teachers shall be given such allowance as may be fixed by Government." The question debated is whether the 16 years of continuous service as graduate teacher should be as a trained graduate teacher or whether untrained service would also count for the said purpose A more or less similar question fell to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in George v. Koruthu & Others (ILR 1978 (1) Ker. 280), with respect to the provisions of R.44A of Chap.14-A of the Kerala Education Rules. That decision has considered the matter at some length. That decision noticed that neither the Kerala Education Act nor the Rules contained the definition of graduate service, that before the Kerala Education Rules there was in force in the Travancore-Cochin area the PSS. Scheme essentially non-statutory, that with respect to the scheme the Government had issued certain proceedings dated 3rd September, 1956 recognising approved service of a graduate teacher in the High School alone as qualifying service for appointment as Headmaster of a High School. After the coming into force of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules on Ist June 1959 G O. Ms. 163/69 dated 17-4-1969 was issued. By the said G O. the term 'Government service' was defined, according to which, in the case of Headmasters of Middle Schools only, trained service can be reckoned as graduate service. It was in the light of this that the Division Bench recognised that trained service alone could qualify a person for appointing as Headmaster for purpose of Chap.14, R.44-A of the Kerala Education Rules. In the present case, we do not have any G. Os. of the type of Ext. R2 which was referred to. explaining'graduate service', which was adopted by the later G.O. viz. G. O. Ms. 163/69. Unaided by any such G. O. we would not be justified in reading into R.3 of Chap.26 any limitation that only trained service as graduate teacher will count for the purpose of pay scale of Departmental Headmaster. R2 which was referred to. explaining'graduate service', which was adopted by the later G.O. viz. G. O. Ms. 163/69. Unaided by any such G. O. we would not be justified in reading into R.3 of Chap.26 any limitation that only trained service as graduate teacher will count for the purpose of pay scale of Departmental Headmaster. Indeed, the express language of the Rule points to the contrary, because it insists on a minimum of 16 years of continuous service as graduate teacher. This is perhaps inevitable having regard to the position disclosed and set out by the G. Os. and the proceedings referred to in our ruling in George's case (ILR. 1978 (1) Ker. 280). The learned judge was not justified in ignoring the express language of the Rule by reference to the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. We are unable to see how the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules can over-ride the express language of Chap.26. This was done for the purpose of counting the training period as service. Merely because the Kerala Service Rules proceed on the assumption that a deputation for training from Departmental Schools to training colleges would not constitute a break in service, we do not think we will be justified in importing the same principle for a totally different purpose sanctioned and contemplated by Chap.26 R.3 of the Kerala Education Rules. We are therefore unable to agree with the learned judge in his reasoning and conclusion on this part of the case. Counsel for the writ petitioner referred our attention to G. O. Ms. 33/70 Edn. dated 21-2-1970 by which, considering the memorandum presented by the General Secretary, Kerala Private Secondary Teachers Association the Government ordered that the period of training of teachers who underwent training after 15-10-1957 will be treated as service without eligibility for subsistence allowance. But we notice that this was part of a scheme of certain G. Os. issued on the point. For instance, by G O Ms. 82/70 the period of training in the case of High School Teachers was directed to be counted for higher grade provided the service before and after training is approved, and provided the break in service before and after training does not exceed four months. In G. O. Ms. 221/70 both the G. Os. 82 and 83 of 1970 were referred to. In G. O. Ms. 221/70 both the G. Os. 82 and 83 of 1970 were referred to. In partial modification of the orders it was ruled that the period of training in the case of aided and departmental schools will be counted for higher scales of pay provided the service before and after training is approved and provided the break in service before and after training shall not exceed four months in the case of aided and departmental school teachers who were appointed prior to 10-4-1958 The relevant facts needed for investigating the question have neither been pleaded nor found and we cannot on the date placed before us hold that these G. Os. have application or that on the basis of those G. Os. the writ-petitioner is entitled to have his untrained service recognised for purpose of his pay scale. The writ-petitioner would be at liberty if so advised to agitate his claims by proper representation showing full details and facts in support of his claim in the light of the G. Os. if they have any application. Subject to that liberty, we allow this writ appeal by the State and direct that the writ petition O. P. No. 2087/1977 will stand dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Allowed.