M. K. MUKHERJEE, C. J. ( 1 ) SAMAR Bahadur Singh, the respondent No. 1 herein, holds B. Ed. and M. Ed. degrees of Allahabad University and at all material times he was a lecturer in Psychology in K. P. Intermediate College, Allahabad. On 30/06/1989, post of the Principal of the said College having fallen vacant, the Committee of Management of the College appointed him the Principal, on ad hoc basis, as he was the seniormost Lecturer in the College; and by his letter dt. 4-12-1989 the District Inspector of Schools gave approval to his such. appointment. While he was functioning in such capacity, a letter dt. 4/05/1990 was addressed by the Deputy Director of Education to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad inquiring about the qualification of Sri Singh. Sri Singh was also asked by the said Deputy Director to furnish details of his qualification, which he did Ultimately, Sri Singh received a direction from the Committee of Management on 31/08/1990, asking him to hand over charge of principalship to the Lecturer next to him in the seniority list. Such a direction was given consequent upon an order made by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad on Aug. 30, 1990, wherein it was pointed out that under Appendix A to the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (act for short), only Masters degree in Education which Sri Singh held, was not a sufficient qualification for a person to hold the post of the Head of the institution. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition contending that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the direction given by the president of the Committee of Management of the College pursuant thereto were illegal and unjustified as M. Ed. degree was also a post-graduate degree and he was legally entitled to hold the post of Principal After hearing the parties, a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders dt. Aug. 30 and 31, 1990 and directed that if any selection was made for the post of Principal on regular basis by the Commission, the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) was also entitled to receive consideration for appointment to the said post along with other eligible candidates. Aug. 30 and 31, 1990 and directed that if any selection was made for the post of Principal on regular basis by the Commission, the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) was also entitled to receive consideration for appointment to the said post along with other eligible candidates. The above order of the learned Judge is under challenge in this Special Appeal filed by Sri S. K. Verma, who is as aspirant for the post of the Principal of the College in question and contested the writ petition. ( 3 ) FOR proper appreciation of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties in the instant appeal, it will be apposite at this stage to look into Appendix A referred to in Regulation I of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act. Appendix A details the minimum qualifications for teaching staffs of the institution, and serial No. 1 thereof, to the extent it is relevant for our present purposes, reads as under :-"1. Head of Institution.- (l) Trained M. A. or M. Sc. (Agri.) or any post-graduate or other degree equivalent thereto awarded by a body referred to in first paragraph above, with an experience of teaching for at least four years in a training institution recognised by the department or in a. University or institution or a Degree College affiliated to such University or institution referred to in first paragraph above or in classes IX to XII of an institution recognised by the Board or affiliated to the Boards of other States or of similar institutions whose examinations are recognised by the Board or of having at least four years experience as a trained graduate Headmaster of Junior High School recognised by the Department provided also that he/she is not below 30 years in age. " ( 4 ) THE expression trained as appearing in the above serial, has been defined in the said appendix to read as under :"the word trained in respect of the qualifications prescribed her under shall imply the possession of a post-graduate training qualification such as L. T. , B. Ed. , B. Sc. or M. Ed. or an equivalent qualification (Degree or Diploma) of any University or institution, as referred to in the preceding paragraph. It will also include A. T. C. of the Department and also C. T. with at least five years teaching experience. , B. Sc. or M. Ed. or an equivalent qualification (Degree or Diploma) of any University or institution, as referred to in the preceding paragraph. It will also include A. T. C. of the Department and also C. T. with at least five years teaching experience. A teacher possessing J. T. C. /b. T. C. shall also be deemed to be C. T. if he has worked in the C. T. grade for at least five years. " ( 5 ) RELYING upon the above quoted provisions, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that M. Ed. is a Masters degree in training and it cannot be treated as or equated with the post-graduate degree mentioned in the above quoted serial. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the expression trained, which prefixes the degrees mentioned in serial No. 1, must mean that for appointment as head of the Institution, a person has to have a training qualification such as L. T. , B. Ed. B. T. , M. Ed. , besides a basic qualification as mentioned therein. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, for appointment as head of the Institution, a degree of M. Ed. would not be sufficient qualification. ( 6 ) IN combating the above contention, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that M. Ed. degree is a postgraduate degree and, as such, it must be held that the said respondent has the requisite qualification to be appointed as Principal of the College, more particularly when he has also training qualification being L. T. ( 7 ) IF the above quoted provisions were read in isolation, we might have attempted to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of the appellant in preference to those of the respondent No. 1, but having read serial No. 1 in juxtaposition with Serial No. 5 of the said Appendix, we find that the contention of respondent No. 1 indefensible. The said serial reads as under :" (5) Where a person has applied for the post of the Head of the institution and holds masters degree on more than one subject, quality point marks will be awarded on the basis of the masters degree in that subject which has a better division as compared to other subject or subjects: provided that if M. Ed. degree is in a better division as compared to other masters degree, the applicant shall not be entitled to any additional marks for M. Ed. under sub-clause (3) : provided further that where the applicant is only M. Ed. with no other masters degree quality point marks will be awarded for M. Ed. as a post-graduate degree. " (Emphasis supplied.) ( 8 ) A plain reading of the second proviso quoted above, ineluctably shows that only an M. Ed. degree has been considered as a qualifying degree for the post of the Head of the Institution. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that Serial No. 5 has been incorporated for awarding marks and it has nothing to do with qualification. ( 9 ) WE are unable to accept the above contention having regard to the fact that a proviso qualifies the main provision and the entire serial No. 5 relates to persons who have applied for the post of Head of the institution. To put it differently, under serial 5 only Masters degree in Education has been treated as a degree for qualification with this rider (under the second proviso) that a person holding such degree would not get better quality point marks. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing discussions, we dismiss this appeal, but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .