JUDGMENT U.L. Bhat, J. 1. The broad facts involved in the two cases can be summarised as follows: The common petitioner in the two original petitions was appointed as Lower Grade Sanskrit Language Teacher in the Upper Primary Section of the S.M. High School Cherai with effect from 15th July 1970 in a regular vacancy. There is no dispute that she is fully qualified for the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) [herein after referred to as H. S. A. (Hindi)]. Smt. A. S. Valsala, (5th respondent in the earlier O. P. and the 3rd respondent in the latter O. P. and herein after referred to as the 5th respondent) is also duly qualified for the post of H. S. A. (Hindi). In a temporary vacancy of Lower Grade Hindi Language Teacher in the U. P. Section, 5th respondent was appointed with effect from 3rd July 1980 and that vacancy was due to last till 31st March 1981. A new post of H. S. A. (Hindi) was sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction with effect from 3rd September 1980. Anticipating sanction, even earlier, the Manager of the school (first respondent in both the cases) advertised the vacancy and it appears that the petitioner submitted her application and she was summoned for interview as per Ext. P-5 in O. P. No. 3172 of 1981 - N. However, the first respondent promoted the 5th respondent to the new post of H. S. A. (Hindi) on 4th December 1980. Since as on 31st March 1981 the 5th respondent did not work continuously for 8 months, she was relieved under R.49 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short the 'Rules'). Naturally the vacancy was present even on 1st June 1981 when the next school year commenced. The Manager appointed 5th respondent to that post with effect from 1st June 1981. Both these appointments, i.e., appointments made on 3rd September 1980 and 1st June 1981 were not approved by the District Educational Officer (2nd respondent in both the cases) and the Manager in one case and the Receiver for the management of the school appointed by the Additional District Court, Parur in O. P. No. 18 of 1980 (4th respondent in O.P. No. 3172 of 1981) in the other case filed appeals against the orders of the District Educational Officer and the appeals are said to be pending. It is submitted that appellate authority has not stayed the operation of the orders. On 10th April 1981 the petitioner filed O.P. No. 1906 of 1981 for a direction to the 2nd respondent to decline to grant approval for the appointment of 5th respondent with effect from 3rd September 1980 and to direct the Manager to promote the petitioner even with reference to 15th October 1979 when, according to the petitioner, the vacancy arose for the first time. She filed O.P. No. 3172 of 1981 on 3rd June 1981 to compel the Manager to appoint her as High School Assistant (Hindi) with effect from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy and to declare her eligibility for promotion as High School Assistant (Hindi) under the Rules. The Manager as well as the 5th respondent filed counter affidavits in the earlier O.P. In the later O.P. the 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. The Court Receiver has filed a counter affidavit. The second respondent has filed common counter affidavit, supporting the stand taken by the petitioner. The Manager and the 5th respondent challenge the case put forward by the petitioner. I may immediately notice that facts do not disclose any vacancy in the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) as having occurred at any time prior to 3rd September 1980. Any relief that the petitioner may be entitled could only be on the basis that the post has been sanctioned with effect from 3rd September 1980. 2. As already mentioned, at present, there is no dispute that the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent have all the requisite qualifications for being promoted or appointed in the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) as per R.2 of Chap.31 of the Rules. 3. The vacancy arose on 3rd September 1980 on which date the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) was sanctioned. On that date the petitioner was working as Lower Grade Sanskrit Language Teacher regularly appointed and the 5th respondent was working as Lower Grade Hindi Language Teacher appointed in a temporary vacancy. The Manager promoted the 5th respondent to the disputed post with effect from 4th December 1980. Both sides have referred to R.43, 43B and 51A of Chap.14A of the Rules to support their respective contentions. It would be useful to read these three rules: "43. The Manager promoted the 5th respondent to the disputed post with effect from 4th December 1980. Both sides have referred to R.43, 43B and 51A of Chap.14A of the Rules to support their respective contentions. It would be useful to read these three rules: "43. Subject to R.4 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 qualifications; 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." "43. B(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in R.43, posts of full-time High School Assistants in a particular language shall be filled up by promotion in the following order of preference :- (i) Lower Grade Language Teachers who have the prescribed qualifications in that language for promotion to the post of High School Assistants in that language at the time of occurrence of the vacancy and who had given option in writing as per G.O.Ms. 612/Edn., dated 10th November 1964 to continue as Lower Grade Language Teachers. (ii) Part-time High School Assistants in that language. (iii) Other Lower Grade Language Teachers in that language. (iv) Regular Primary teachers having the prescribed qualifications. (v) Craft and Specialist teachers having the prescribed qualifications. (vi) If no teacher with the prescribed qualifications is available in the categories mentioned above, Lower Grade Language Teachers in any other language having the prescribed qualifications. (2) If qualified teachers as mentioned in sub-rule (1) are not available in the schools under the same Educational agency for promotion to the post of High School Assistants in that language, qualified candidates from outside may be appointed to that post." "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.'' 4. 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.'' 4. R.43 would show that a vacancy in a higher grade of pay shall ordinarily be filled up by promotion, subject of course to R.44 and 45 and considerations of efficiency, etc. We are not concerned with R.44 and 45 since they relate to the post of Headmasters. There is no case put forward by the Manager that considerations of efficiency will have an impact on the facts of the present cases. A teacher in a lower grade of pay in one category of post is also eligible for promotion to a post carrying higher scale of pay in another category, subject to the Note to R.43. It cannot be said that the post of lower grade language teacher in Hindi and the post of lower grade language teacher in Sanskrit are in different categories. The categories of posts can be made out from Chap.14A of the rules. Broad categories are those of Assistants, Language Teachers, Specialist Teachers, Craft Teachers and of part-time teachers. Petitioner and the 5th respondent are lower grade language teachers as on 3rd September 1980 and therefore belong to the same category of posts. It cannot be said that post of H. S. A. (Hindi) and the post of a Lower Grade Sanskrit (or Hindi) Language Teacher are different categories of posts. They are, of course, posts in different grades, but in the same category of language teachers. There can, therefore, be no doubt that under R.43 the petitioner had a right to be considered for promotion on 3rd September 1980. However, R.43B is a special rule relating to filling up of posts of H.S.As., particular languages. This rule, being a special rule, would prevail over R.43 in case of any conflict between the two. However, there is no noticeable conflict in the two rules. R.43 lays down the rule to fill up posts of higher grade of pay by way of promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade of pay according to seniority and in their absence, promotion of a teacher in a lower grade in another category of post is contemplated. However, there is no noticeable conflict in the two rules. R.43 lays down the rule to fill up posts of higher grade of pay by way of promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade of pay according to seniority and in their absence, promotion of a teacher in a lower grade in another category of post is contemplated. R.43-B is a rule indicating preference as between candidates in the lower grade in the same category and different categories. Sub clauses (i) and (iii) of R.43B(1) lay down preferences between persons holding lower grade in the same category, i.e. the category of High School Assistants in Languages, Lower Grade Language Teachers and Part-time H.S.As., in the language. Sub clause (iv), however, deals with a person holding a lower grade of pay, in another category, i.e. category consisting of High School Assistants, Upper Primary School Assistants and Lower Primary School Assistants. Sub clause (v) deals with yet another category of craft and specialist teachers. Sub clause (vi) deals with lower grade language teachers in any other language. The promotion in the instant case is governed by the preferences laid down in R.43B. 5. According to the petitioner, preferences are applicable only where there are more than one regularly appointed teacher in the field and since in these cases the 5th respondent was not a regular appointee, but an appointee in a casual vacancy, she was not at all eligible for promotion to the post of H. S. A. (Hindi) with effect from 3rd September 1980 or 4th December 1980. The learned counsel appearing for the Manager and the 5th respondent, on the other hand, would contend that R.43B would attract even in the case of persons occupying leave vacancy and other temporary vacancies and is not confined to cases of persons appointed on a regular basis. 6. Consideration of other relevant rules in Chap.14A of the rules becomes necessary. R.2 states that appointments of qualified hands shall be deemed acting till they are confirmed. R.3 states that initial appointment of qualified teachers shall be on probation. R.6, inter alia states, that teachers appointed under R.3 shall be on probation for a total period of one year within a continuous period of two years. R.20 requires service books to be maintained in the prescribed form for all teachers. R.3 states that initial appointment of qualified teachers shall be on probation. R.6, inter alia states, that teachers appointed under R.3 shall be on probation for a total period of one year within a continuous period of two years. R.20 requires service books to be maintained in the prescribed form for all teachers. R.34 requires every management to prepare and maintain in the prescribed form a staff list called as the seniority list teachers. R.36 deals with finalisation of the list after considering the representations, if any. R.37 provides that 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 qualified for the post. R.41 deals with confirmation and promotion of teachers who have completed probation satisfactorily. R.47 requires every teacher appointed in a permanent vacancy to provide health certificate in the prescribed form on confirmation. R.49 states that qualified teachers (except Headmaster) appointed in vacancies which are not permanent, which extend over the summer vacation and who continue in such vacancies till the closing date are to be retained in the vacancy during the vacation if they have service as on the closing date of not less than 8 months. 7. The above rules give us the indication that whenever a reference is made to a "teacher" in the above rules it is intended to refer to ''teacher regularly appointed". Teachers not regularly appointed, but appointed in a short term vacancy have no probation or confirmation, etc. It is doubtful if they will figure in the seniority list either. It cannot be that such temporary hands can have any claim superior to regular hands. R.43 refers to seniority being a factor. It does not appear that there will be any question of seniority between a regular appointee and a short term or temporary appointee. Viewed in this lights it must follow that reference to teachers in R.43B could only be treated as reference to "teacher appointed on a regular basis" and not in a short term or temporary vacancy. 8. It does not appear that there will be any question of seniority between a regular appointee and a short term or temporary appointee. Viewed in this lights it must follow that reference to teachers in R.43B could only be treated as reference to "teacher appointed on a regular basis" and not in a short term or temporary vacancy. 8. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent relies on R.43B(1)(iii) (regular primary teachers having prescribed qualification) to contend that whenever the intention was to confine the operation of the rule to "regular teachers", the word "regular" has been used and since the word "regular" has not been used in the other clauses of the rule, the idea of "regular appointee" cannot be imported into those clauses. I am unable to agree. The expression "regular primary teacher" has particular connotation. It may be seen that there is no such classification as primary teacher in Chap.23 of the Rules. Chap.23 refers to High School Assistants, Upper Primary School Assistants and Lower Primary School Assistants, but not to primary teachers or regular primary teacher. At the same time, R.1, 2, 2A, and 3 of Chap.23 of the rules will show that in the Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools there will not only be School Assistants, but also Music teacher, Sewing Mistress, other specialist teachers, Arabic teacher, etc. Even though they may hold posts in primary schools, they are not "regular primary teachers". "Regular primary teachers" can only be Primary School Assistants. Reference to regular primary teachers in R.43B(1)(iv) into such school assistants and not to craft or specialist teachers, who may work in the Lower Primary or Upper Primary Schools sections of the school. That can be seen from the fact that craft and other language teachers are taken in by clauses (iv) and (vi) of R.43B(1). The word "regular" has no reference to the connotation of "regular appointee" but has only reference to the regularity of the post as assistant and not as specialist or craft or language teacher. I, therefore, hold that 5th respondent, who was appointed in a short-term vacancy, will not come under any of the clauses of R.43B. If she had been a regular appointee, she would have come under the sub clause (iii) of R.43B(i) "other lower grade language teachers in that language". I, therefore, hold that 5th respondent, who was appointed in a short-term vacancy, will not come under any of the clauses of R.43B. If she had been a regular appointee, she would have come under the sub clause (iii) of R.43B(i) "other lower grade language teachers in that language". No party has a case that there were any qualified hand available for promotion falling within clauses (i) to (v) of R.43B(1) of Chap.14A of the rules. Clause (vi) states that "if no teacher with the prescribed qualification is available in categories in clauses (i) to (v), lower grade language teachers in any other language having the prescribed qualification" can be promoted. Petitioner is Lower Grade Sanskrit Language Teacher, i.e., a language other than Hindi. She has the prescribed qualifications for the post of High School Assistant (Hindi). There was no other teacher with the prescribed qualifications falling in categories (i) to (v) of R.43B(1) as on 3rd September 1980. Therefore, the promotion given to the 5th respondent with reference to 3rd September 1980 is contrary to the rules and the petitioner should have been promoted instead. 9. Turning to the vacancy which was filled up on 1st June 1981, it has to be seen that on that date the 5th respondent was not in the service of the school. She was not working in the school as she was relieved on 31st March 1981. The post has to be filled up by promotion as stated in R.43 and 43B. Sub-R.(2) of R.43B states that only if qualified teachers mentioned in clause (i) to (vi) of sub-R.(1) are not available to be promoted" that qualified persons from outside shall be appointed to that posts. On 1st June 1981 petitioner was available for promotion as duly qualified hand. There is no case put forward by the manager that on that date any other qualified hand was available for promotion in the school. On that date the 5th respondent was outside the school. Therefore the petitioner ought to have been promoted and post filled up with effect from 1st June 1981. 10. However, it is contended that the promotion of the 5th respondent is valid by virtue of R.51A. Under R.51A qualified teacher relieved under R.49 or 52 on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same educational agency. 10. However, it is contended that the promotion of the 5th respondent is valid by virtue of R.51A. Under R.51A qualified teacher relieved under R.49 or 52 on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same educational agency. R.51A is a rule providing for appointments. Appointment to a post in a higher grade can be made only if no qualified hand is available for promotion in the lower grade as stated in sub-R.(2) of R.43B. That R.51A cannot override rule 43 has been laid down by this court on several occasions. See Mary v. The Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction and others (ILR 1974 (2) Ker. 274) and Babu v. Manager S. N. V. H. School, Paravur and others (ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 40). On the same principle it must follow that R.51A cannot override R.43B. If the petitioner was not available for promotion on 1st June 1981, possibly, the 5th respondent would have had a claim for appointment. But, since the petitioner was available for promotion on that date under clause (vi) of R.43B(1) of Chap.14A of the rules, the Manager had no authority to appoint the 5th respondent in that vacancy. 11. The fact that the common second respondent has declined to grant approval for the promotion/appointment of the 5th respondent and the Manager has preferred appeals before the Deputy Director cannot be a reason to disable the petitioner from seeking reliefs at the hands of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. Petitioner has no locus standi in those appeals, and she has to work out her remedies independently and this is what she has done by filing these Original Petitions. In the result, these two Original Petitions are allowed by declaring that promotions of the 5th respondent to the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) with effect from 4th December 1980 and the appointment to the post with effect from 1st June 1981 are illegal and cannot stand. It is also declared that the petitioner was eligible 10 be promoted to the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) on 3rd September 1980 and also on 1st June 1981. Respondents are directed to take immediate steps to effectuate the promotion of the petitioner to the post of High School Assistant (Hindi). In the circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs.