Judgment :- 1. The Manager of an aided U. P. School is the appellant. The post of a Needle Work Teacher, a specialist teacher as it is known under the K.E.R., was sanctioned for the School in 1961. One Nandini who continued as a specialist teacher in that sanctioned post retired from service on 31-3-1986. The Manager, the appellant, appointed the 5th respondent as Needle Work Teacher in that vacancy. The appointment was not approved by the authorities and therefore the Manager came to this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. The Writ petition was dismissed and hence this appeal. 2. The appellant contends that the appointment was to a sanctioned post of a specialist teacher which did not cease to exist when Nandini retired. The Manager did not create a new post of a Needle Work Teacher and the appointment of the 5th respondent was not to a new post. It is contended that the approval was declined on a wrong understanding of the relevant provisions, in Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it is necessary to extract R.2 and R.6B(1) iff Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R, which read thus: "2. (1) Subject to availability of funds, the number of specialist teachers that may be appointed in Lower Primary Schools shall be as follows: (i) A music teacher or a sewing mistress will be allowed to a Lower Primary School having a total strength of 200 or more girl pupils. (ii) A music teacher and a sewing teacher will be allowed to a Lower Primary School where the strength of the girl pupils is 400 or above. (iii) XX XX XX (iv) Music/ Needle work will be taught also to boys who wish to learn them. (v) As far as possible combined posts of music and sewing teachers will be created. (vi) Two or three Schools (Departmental and Aided both) may be clubbed together for the purpose of appointment of specialist teachers. Part time teachers may be appointed if the number of periods of work in a week is less than 15, (2) The number of specialist teachers who may be appointed in a District shall be fixed by the Director and intimated to the District Educational Officer every year. Part time teachers may be appointed if the number of periods of work in a week is less than 15, (2) The number of specialist teachers who may be appointed in a District shall be fixed by the Director and intimated to the District Educational Officer every year. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the above rules, no post of Specialist Teacher shall be created in any Lower Primary School or Lower Primary Sections of Upper Primary or High Schools: Provided that posts already sanctioned against which specialist teachers are appointed and approved may continue as such." "68(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rule in this Chapter no posts of specialist teacher or craft teacher shall be created in any upper primary schools or upper primary sections of High Schools for a period of 6 years from the school year 1969-70. Provided that the posts sanctioned before 1969-70 against which specialist teachers and craft teachers are appointed and approved and such teachers who are qualified according to the rules then in force may however continue as such." 3. R.2(1) provides the principles for the fixation of the number of specialist teachers with reference to the strength of pupils and subject to the availability of funds. The rule does not compel the appointment of specialist teachers in all cases. R.2(3) prohibits the creation of the post of specialist teacher but protects continuance of "posts already sanctioned against which specialist teachers are appointed and approved" Then follows R.66. R.6B beginning with the usual non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rule in this Chapter". R.6B(1) states that no post of specialist teacher shall be created in any Upper Primary Schools or Upper Primary sections of High Schools for a period of 6 years from the school year 1969-70. But, under the proviso teachers who were qualified and who were holding sanctioned posts before 1969-70 were allowed to continue as such. The short question, therefore, is whether the proviso under Rale 6B gives protection to the posts sanctioned before 1969-70 or to teachers who were appointed to those posts. 4. We do not think that there is any conflict between R.2(3) and R.6B. A harmonious construction will give life and meaning to both the provisions. Even if there is any conflict between the two provisions, R.6B will have to prevail in view of the non obstante clause. 4. We do not think that there is any conflict between R.2(3) and R.6B. A harmonious construction will give life and meaning to both the provisions. Even if there is any conflict between the two provisions, R.6B will have to prevail in view of the non obstante clause. The protection under role 2(3) is only to continue a sanctioned post when there is a teacher appointed and approved for the post. The post does not continue when the teacher leaves the post. Similarly under the proviso to R.6B, the protection is to the teachers who were holding the posts of specialist teachers sanctioned before 1969-70 and not to the posts which they were occupying. Our learned brother Justice Sivaraman Nair in Saroja v. A.E.O. Pattambi (ILR. 1987(2) Ker.10) has, in construing this proviso, succinctly held thus: "The conjoint effect of these provisions seems to be that a post of Specialist Teacher sanctioned prior to 1969-70 and the incumbent in that post may continue till that incumbent validly holds that post and not thereafter". We are in entire agreement with this view expressed by the learned Judge. In the present case, therefore, as the 5th respondent was not a teacher who was holding a post sanctioned before 1969-70 but was sought to be appointed for the first time in 1986, the proviso can have no application. 5. However, it was contended that R.6B prohibits creation of a post and does not affect sanction. Under the KER. post created has to be sanctioned. A sanction is implicit in the creation of the post. Post sanctioned under the rale alone can be created. If creation of post is prohibited under the rules, sanction to that post is also prohibited. There cannot be sanction to a post which cannot be created. Moreover, the number of posts to be sanctioned every year depends on the staff strength for each year. If a needle teacher could not be created in 1986, it could not also be sanctioned for that year. No such post was sanctioned and there was no vacancy to be filled. The 5th respondent's appointment was rightly disapproved by the authorities. 6. There is no case that conditions prescribed under R.6B(2) where satisfied in this case. Thus no needle teacher could be appointed either under R.2(3) or under R.6B (2) or even under the proviso to R.6B(1). No such post was sanctioned and there was no vacancy to be filled. The 5th respondent's appointment was rightly disapproved by the authorities. 6. There is no case that conditions prescribed under R.6B(2) where satisfied in this case. Thus no needle teacher could be appointed either under R.2(3) or under R.6B (2) or even under the proviso to R.6B(1). R.6B applies to the posts of specialist teachers for a period of six years from 1969-70. The proviso also can apply only to those posts and for those periods. The Manager's claim is for appointing a teacher in 1986 for a period not covered by R.6B. 7. It was then contended that the Government have passed an order Ext. P8 in favour of certain specialist teachers in similar circumstances. If the Government have on a wrong understanding and application of role 6B granted any favoured treatment to some teachers, it is no ground to give the same relief to the 5th respondent or to the appellant against the express statutory provisions. A specialist teacher who cannot be appointed for want of required pupil strength under R.6B (2) in 1986 cannot be appointed relying on another rule in Chapter XXIII. 8. It was lastly contended that the same question is pending before a learned judge of this Court in O. P. No. 192 of 1988 and the writ petition has been admitted and notice ordered. That is no ground to admit this writ appeal. The decision in this case will govern similar cases where the same question arises. The learned judge was therefore right in dismissing the Original petition and we see no merit in this writ appeal. Dismissed. Dismissed.