JUDGMENT K. Bhaskaran, Ag, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brotherChandrasekhara Menon, J. in O.P. No. 497 of 1980 dated 3-8-1982 to theextent that in and by that Ext. P14 seniority list has not been struck down asprayed for by the appellant petitioner. The appellant petitioner enteredGovernment service on 6-6-1964 having been appointed a graduate teacher inthe High School at Kavaratti. Subsequently he got himself appointed a postgraduate teacher. We are also told that he had many academic distinctionshaving secured post graduate degrees in Economics, History and Education.On 15-7-1972 Jawaharlal Nehru College was opened at Kavaratti. He gothimself appointed a lecturer in the said College. 2. The contest is between the appellant petitioner on the one hand, and the 3rd respondent on the other. The 3rd respondent entered the Government. service as a post graduate teacher in the school referred to above on 15-6-1968. He, like the appellant petitioner, got appointment in the college with effect from 15-7-1972. The contention is, who, between the two, the appellant petitioner on the one hand or the 3rd respondent on the other, was entitled to be appointed the Principal. In the final seniority list of post graduate teachers attached to Ext. 14, the appellant, petitioner rank's No. 7; and the 3rd respondent No. 2; and in the final seniority list of junior lecturers Jawaharlal Nehru College, Kavaratti attached thereto they ranked respectively 1 and 6. Obviously it is on the basis of the seniority in the cadre of post graduate teachers in the High School that the seniority in the cadre of lecturer also is fixed, and the 3rd respondent given the adhoc promotion to the post of Principal as evidenced by Ext. P15 office order of the Ist respondent Administrator dated 20-5-1981. 3. The College is affiliated to the Calicut University. Schedule to Ext. P8 shows the qualification required for the appointments to the post of Principal Din the Jawaharlal Nehru College. It provides under clause (7): "Essential (i) At least 2nd class Master's degree of a recognised University or equivalent with a common of 50% marks in the subject concerned. 3. The College is affiliated to the Calicut University. Schedule to Ext. P8 shows the qualification required for the appointments to the post of Principal Din the Jawaharlal Nehru College. It provides under clause (7): "Essential (i) At least 2nd class Master's degree of a recognised University or equivalent with a common of 50% marks in the subject concerned. (ii) At least 10 years teaching experience in a college affiliated to a recognized University provided that in the case of holders of Doctorate degree at least 5 years teaching experience as specified above shall be required (qualification relaxable at the Union Public Service Commission's discretion in case of candidates otherwise well qualified)". 4. The choice fell on the 3rd respondent for the ad hoc appointment to be the Principal on the ground that even prior to the appellant petitioner, he was appointed to be a post graduate teacher in the same school, and was therefore holding a higher grade, in the cadre of High School Assistant. The learned Judge while granting other reliefs sought in the writ petition, with which we are not concerned in this appeal, declined to quash the final seniority list of Junior lecturers, Jawaharlal Nehru College, Kavartti attached to Ext. P14. The submission made by Sri. Nayanar, the counsel for the appellant petitioner, who challenges the judgment in the writ petition, is that the appellant petitioner having been appointed to the College on the same date as that of the 3rd the appellant petitioner, who was born on 30-12-1935 ought to have been preferred to the 3rd respondent who was born on 23-3-1942. According to him in age the appellant petitioner was senior; and in qualification he was head and shoulder above the 3rd respondent. Even from the point of view of total length of service, if that be the criterion, the appellant petitioner had better claims than the 3rd respondent to the post of the Principal as the appellant petitioner entered service as a graduate teacher on 6-6-1964 whereas the 3rd respondent entered service as a post graduate teacher only on 15-6-1968. 5. It is difficult to accept the logic behind the decision of the Ist respondent Administrator that the 3rd respondent was senior in the cadre of junior lecturer to the appellant petitioner. 5. It is difficult to accept the logic behind the decision of the Ist respondent Administrator that the 3rd respondent was senior in the cadre of junior lecturer to the appellant petitioner. For the sake of convenience we may assume that the High School has only been converted or upgraded into a college; but it would be fallacious to consider that the seniority of teachers appointed to the College has to be reckoned on the basis of seniority which they had been having in the High School before their appointment to the College. The qualification prescribed for the Principal in the schedule to Ext. P8 would go to show that only teaching experience in college is to be reckoned for the purpose of assessing the qualification of a teacher for being appointed the Principal. In other words it means that teaching experience in High School or any where else of a teacher is immaterial for the purpose of deciding the qualification for his being selected for being appointed to the post of Principal. To select one, among the two teachers who entered service in the College on the same date, on the ground that he was having longer service or was holding a higher grade in the High School, could be done only in violation of the provisions contained in Ext. P8 by which the Ist respondent Administrator is bound. In terms of Ext. P8 the teaching experience in the College alone, not in the High School, is relevant while considering the qualification of a teacher for appointment to the post of Principal, and the Schedule to Ext. P8 makes abundantly clear that where two persons are appointed to a post in the same class, cadre or category, the person older in age between them should be considered the senior in service. This is also in consonance with the well accepted principle that is seen embodied in the second proviso to R.27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and in modification of the judgment appealed against, we quash the final seniority list of junior lecturers, Jawaharlal Nehru College, Kavaratti attached to Ext. This is also in consonance with the well accepted principle that is seen embodied in the second proviso to R.27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and in modification of the judgment appealed against, we quash the final seniority list of junior lecturers, Jawaharlal Nehru College, Kavaratti attached to Ext. P14 office memorandum dated 9-1-1980 and direct the Ist respondent Administrator to consider the case of the appellant petitioner for his being appointed to the post of the Principal of the College according to law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs.