Judgment :- O.P. No. 8196 of 1990 is filed by petitioner, who is aggrieved by the orders passed by the educational authorities and the State declining to approve her appointment. 6th respondent in O.P. No. 81% of 1990 has filed O.P. No. 11740 of 1990 seeking implementation of Ext. P5 order, which declared that she is entitled to be appointed by virtue of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-AK.E.R. O.P. No. 6519 of 1991 is filed by the Manager, 7th respondent in O.P. No. 81% of 1990 challenging the orders declining to approve appointment of petitioner in O.P. No. 8196 of 1990 made by him and declaring that the 6th respondent is not entitled to get appointment on the strength of Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV-A.K.E.R. For convenient sake, I will refer the parties with reference to their array in O.P. No. 8196 of 1990. As a common question is raised in all these Original Petitions, I am disposing of these petitions by a combined judgment. 2. Leave vacancy of a Upper Primary School Assistant (Hindi) arose in the Karakode Upper Primary School. Pursuant to the advertisement given by 7th respondent, petitioner applied for the post and she was selected. Ext.P1 appointment order dated 14-8-1989 was issued by 7th respondent. It was to fill the leave vacancy for the period from 14-8-1989 to 17-10-1989. The appointment order was sent for approval. 5th respondent the Assistant Educational Officer passed an order dated 2-11-1989 declining the approval on the ground that 6th respondent had complained that she had got previous approved service as P.D. Hindi teacher in the school and that therefore she was rightful claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R.7th respondent Manager filed an appeal against the order of 5th respondent. In the meanwhile, 6th respondent filed a representation Ext. P3 before the Government stating that she is the rightful claimant under Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. as she had worked in the U.P. School, Karakode for the period from 3-11-1969 to 15-1-1970 in a leave' vacancy. In an Original Petition filed by 6th respondent, this court passed Ext. P4 judgment, directing the Government to dispose of Ext. P3 representation. There was also a direction that if any appointment is made by the Manager, in the meantime, the controlling officer should not approve the same until the Government passes final orders in the matter. In an Original Petition filed by 6th respondent, this court passed Ext. P4 judgment, directing the Government to dispose of Ext. P3 representation. There was also a direction that if any appointment is made by the Manager, in the meantime, the controlling officer should not approve the same until the Government passes final orders in the matter. Pursuant to this, Government passed Ext. P5 order, holding that 6th respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A and therefore she is the rightful claimant to be appointed in the vacancy. 7th respondent Manager was directed to appoint 6th respondent. In the meanwhile, the teacher who took leave retired and a permanent vacancy arose and 7th respondent appointed the petitioner to fill that permanent vacancy. The Assistant Educational officer refused to approve the appointment by Ext. P6 order. O.P. No. 11740 of 1990 is filed by 6th respondent praying to implement Ext. P5 order, which is produced therein as Ext. P3 and O.P.No.6519 of 1991 is filed by 7th respondent seeking to quash Ext. P5 order and praying for some consequential orders. 3. The only question to be considered in these Original Petitions is whether 6th respondent is entitled to preferential claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A. Government have taken the view that 6th respondent having worked in the school and had approved service in a leave vacancy, she is entitled to be appointed. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the view taken by the Government in Ext. P5 is not correct. The main argument advanced by him is that subsequent to the appointment of 6th respondent, she was appointed in a permanent vacancy in a school, under other educational agency and by reason of Proviso to Rule 51A, she lost her preferential claim. 4. A reading of rule 51a would show that qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in school under the same educational agency, provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other educational agency. From Note 1 it is clear that if there are more than one claimant under this rule, the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. From Note 1 it is clear that if there are more than one claimant under this rule, the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. Note 2 states that Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher by registered post acknowledgement due and give a period of 14 clear days to the teacher to join duty, that if the teacher does not join duty in time, the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under the rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 clear days. If nothing is heard even after further notice, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the 6th respondent was appointed in a permanent vacancy subsequent to her appointment in the school of 7th respondent. This leads us to the question whether an Educational Agency in TamilNadu would fall within the expression" under any Educational agency" in rule 51A. It has also to be stated that even accepting the interpretation suggested by learned counsel for petitioner, there is no material to hold that 6th respondent is appointed in a permanent vacancy under an Educational Agency in TamilNadu. The necessary averment on this aspect is made in para 8 of the Original Petition. It is stated there that 6th respondent is a permanent teacher in an aided school under a private Educational Agency in TamilNadu and she is entitled-to benefits of protection of service under Chapter V of TamilNadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act (T.N. Act 29) of 1974 and therefore 6th respondent has no claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. 6th respondent in her counter affidavit has denied this averment. However, in Ground F, petitioner has averred that the Government has found that Smt. Sarasamma was working in the ABC Matriculation School at Kollamkode in TamilNadu and it is an undisputed fact. To this, 6th respondent has replied in her counter affidavit as follows:- "ABC Matriculation school mentioned in the O.P. was permitted to be opened by Tamil Nadu Government only on 6-7-1989with certain condition. Before that, it was a private tuition Home. Hindi is not a subject that is taught in Tamil Nadu Schools. To this, 6th respondent has replied in her counter affidavit as follows:- "ABC Matriculation school mentioned in the O.P. was permitted to be opened by Tamil Nadu Government only on 6-7-1989with certain condition. Before that, it was a private tuition Home. Hindi is not a subject that is taught in Tamil Nadu Schools. In Kerala as well as in Central Schools, Hindi is taught after the IV th standard. To enable students who get admitted after the IV Std. in Kerala or in Central Schools, I used to give tuition in A.B.C. Nursery School occasionally. It was then a proprietory concern run by Sri. D. Titus. In Tamil Nadu, a school run by a single individual under normal circumstances is not recognised. The tuition centre where I was engaged and which was neither aided nor recognised under any enactment, was later converted into society. As per proceedings of Tamil Nadu Government dated 7-9-1989 (proceedings No. 106706/E3/ 89 dated 7-9-1989) the school was allowed to function. Later it came to be known as A.B.C. Matriculation School. It is an unaided, where Hindi is not taught. I was relieved from the Nursery School immediately thereafter". 6. Ext. R6(b) filed along with the counter affidavit of 6th respondent is the proceedings of the Director of School Education, Madras-6, whereunder permission was given to open a new matriculation school at Kanyakumari in the name of A.B.C. Matriculation School. That is dated 7-9-1989. In reply to a letter sent by the Advocate of 6th respondent, a reply was sent by the correspondent of A.B.C. Matriculation School, which would show that it was only by the order of the Director referred to as Ext. R6(b) that the school was opened and before that the institution was only a tuition centre. It also shows that before recognition was given, 6th respondent's service was terminated with effect from 21-7-1989. Ext. R6(c) is the said reply. No document has been produced by petitioner or 7th respondent to show that 6th respondent was working in a permanent vacancy in any school. Of course, Ext. P8 voters list has been produced to show that her name was not included in the Parassala Constituency. Ext. P9 would show that she was a voter in TamilNadu. These circumstances are hardly sufficient to establish that she was appointed in a permanent vacancy in a school under any other Educational Agency in TamilNadu. 7. Of course, Ext. P8 voters list has been produced to show that her name was not included in the Parassala Constituency. Ext. P9 would show that she was a voter in TamilNadu. These circumstances are hardly sufficient to establish that she was appointed in a permanent vacancy in a school under any other Educational Agency in TamilNadu. 7. I shall now consider the question whether an Educational Agency in TamilNadu will come within the purview of Expression "any Educational Agency" in Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. Sub-section 2 of S.2 of the Act defines 'educational agency' as follows: "educational agency" means any person or body of persons permitted to establish and maintain any private school under this Act". An institution established under TamilNadu Act cannot fall under this definition since it would net be an educational agency within the definition of Sub-section 2 of S.2 of Kerala Education Act. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this definition cannot be pressed into service in view of clause 'unless the context otherwise requires' occurring in S.2 of Kerala Education Act. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the spirit of Rule 51A is to protect the teachers who have no permanent appointments in other schools and to deny such protection to teachers who are appointed permanently in some other school and having regard to the context in which Rule 51A is framed, Educational Agency outside Kerala should also be treated as an educational agency within the meaning of Rule 51A, notwithstanding the fact that the definition contained in sub-section 2 of S.2 does not take in its ambit such schools. Itis difficult to accept this argument. When the Act itself has defined the meaning of "Educational Agency" restricting to Educational Agency permitted to maintain any private school under that Act, I do not find any rhyme or reason to expand the meaning of the expression 'Educational Agency 'through an interpretative process which is not warranted by the definition. In its legislative wisdom the legislature wanted to take in its ambit only Educational Agency permitted to maintain school under the Kerala Education Act. It is settled principle that a Rule framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Act cannot overstep the Act. The delegated authority which framed the Rules also understood the expression 'Educational Agency' only in that restrictive sense as is revealed from the impugned order. 8. It is settled principle that a Rule framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Act cannot overstep the Act. The delegated authority which framed the Rules also understood the expression 'Educational Agency' only in that restrictive sense as is revealed from the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner in O.P. No. 11740 of 1990 contended that the Manager being the appointing authority, appointment of the petitioner cannot be challenged. Manager is governed by the provisions of Kerala Education Act and Rules. If the appointment is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule S. IA, the appointment cannot be approved. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Mary Oommen v. Manager. M.G.M. High School, Karuppam-pady (1987 (1) KLT 686 = AIR 1987 SC 1163), but I do not find anything therein to support the contention of learned counsel. The dictum laid down therein is that a teacher who had worked in leave vacancies on temporary basis shall have preference for appointment. 9. Foregoing discussion would show that Ext. P5 in O.P. No. 81% of 1990 is correct and does not call for any interference. This follows, there is no merit in O.P. No. 8196 of 1990 and 6519 of 1991 and they are liable to be dismissed. O.P. No. 11740 of 1990 is filed by 6th respondent. The prayer in that Original Petition is to direct respondents 1 to 5 therein to implement Ext. P3, which is Ext. P5 order in O.P. No. 8196 of 1990, which I have held to be perfectly valid and legal. Respondents 1 to 6 will take immediate steps to implement Ext. P3 order in O.P. No. 11740 of 1990 forthwith. Original Petitions are disposed of as above.