Judgment :- Jagannadha Rao, CJ. These two appeals are connected and can be disposed of together. W.A. No. 1417 of 1991 arises out of the dismissal of O.P. No. 9798 of 1989. W.A No. 1375 of 1991 is against the judgment allowing O.P. No. 10289 of 1987. It is not disputed before us that our decision in W.A. No. 14178 of 1991 would govern the decision in W.A. No. 1375 of 1991. We therefore will refer to the facts in O.P.No. 9798 of 1989 out of which W.ANo. 1417 of 1991 arises. 2. There was a vacancy in the post of Headmaster on 31-5-1988. According to the seniority list of teachers, the seniormost person in the list is one Sarojini Amma, the next one is Janaki Amma and the next one is Karunakara Marar (writ petitioner in O.P. No. 9798 of 1989) and the fourth person is Govindan Nambissan, fifth respondent in the above writ petition. For the purpose of promotion to the post of Headmaster certain additional qualifications are necessary for a continuing teacher. It is the admitted case that Sarojini Amma and Janaki Amma who did not have the S.S.L.C. qualification are not eligible to be appointed as Headmaster. Only eligible persons were Karunakara Marar (writ petitioner) who had the S.S.L.C. as well as T.T.C. qualification, and Govindan Nambissan who is a graduate with B.Ed qualification and who acquired five years minimum service after B.Ed qualification. The writ petitioner Karunakara Marar was appointed on 24-7-1967 and has 21 years of service while Govindan Nambissan has a little more than 12 years service. So far as Sarojini Amma, the seniormost person in the list is concerned, she was appointed as a teacher on 26-8-1957 and had more than 31 years of service as on the date of occurrence of the present vacancy, that is, 31-5-1988. Initially, Govindan Nambissan was appointed as Headmaster on the basis that he satisfied the requirements of Rule 45 of the Rules in Chapter XIV-Aof the Kerala Education Rules. Against the said appointment, Karunakara Marar appealed and the appeal was allowed. Govindan Nambissan filed revision against the said order and the revision was allowed. Questioning the said order Karunakara Marar filed the writ petition, O.P; No. 9798 of 1989. 3. Against the said appointment, Karunakara Marar appealed and the appeal was allowed. Govindan Nambissan filed revision against the said order and the revision was allowed. Questioning the said order Karunakara Marar filed the writ petition, O.P; No. 9798 of 1989. 3. According to the writ petitioner, Rule 45 of the Rules has not been properly interpreted and if this rule is properly interpreted, Govindan Nambissan would not be entitled to be appointed as Headmaster. For the purpose of appreciating the said contention it is necessary to refer to Rule 45, which reads as follows: "45. Subject to Rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of complete U.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U.P. School becomes a complete U.P. School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. If there is a graduate teacher with B.Ed or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching (after acquisition of B.Ed Degree) he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the School or schools under the same Educational Agency; the seniormost Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore or a pass in Pre-degree examination with pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant may be appointed". It will be noticed that Rule 45 contains three clauses. 4. The learned single judge has compared the length of service of Govindan Nambissan with that of the writ petitioner Karunakara Marar and found that the former has more than half of the service of the latter and the former was rightly appointed as Headmaster. The learned judge also held that the computation of half service should be with the service of a person otherwise "qualified" to be appointed as Headmaster such as the writ petitioner and not with the service of a person like Sarojini Amma who was otherwise not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster for want of S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. 5. The learned judge also held that the computation of half service should be with the service of a person otherwise "qualified" to be appointed as Headmaster such as the writ petitioner and not with the service of a person like Sarojini Amma who was otherwise not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster for want of S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. 5. It is the contention of the Writ petitioner that half period of service which is relevant for the purpose of the second clause in Rule 45 is to be computed with reference to the total service of an undergraduate teacher, not necessarily a "qualified" undergraduate teacher as held by the learned single judge and the Government. According to him, if the rule is interpreted, as per his above contention, Govindan Nambissan would not be having more than one half of the service of Sarojini Amma though he might be having more than one half of the service of the writ petitioner, Karunakara Marar. As already stated, a son the date of the vacancy on 31-5-1988 Sarojini Amma was having 1 years of service and the writ petitioner was having 21 years of service and Govindan Nambissan was having a little more than 12 years of service. The writ petitioner says that computation should be with reference to the service of Sarojini Amma, even though she was not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. It is argued that the word 'qualified' cannot be added before the words 'under graduate teacher' in the second clause of Rule 45 and that would amount to adding something to the Rule which the rule making authority never intended. 6. We are unable to agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants. In our view, there is a clear scheme and logic behind the various provisions of Rule 45. The first clause clearly mentions that when the post of Headmaster of a complete U.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U.P. School becomes a complete U.P. School, the post shall be filled up from among the "qualified" teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. Thereafter, comes the question of preference between those mentioned in the second and third clauses. The second clause relates to preference of a graduate teacher while the third clause deals with preference of a non-graduate teacher. Thereafter, comes the question of preference between those mentioned in the second and third clauses. The second clause relates to preference of a graduate teacher while the third clause deals with preference of a non-graduate teacher. Read along with the first clause it is clear that the teachers referred to in clauses 2 and 3 must be qualified teachers as mentioned in the first clause. A graduate teacher is to be given preference if certain conditions are satisfied, namely, that he is also having B.Ed qualification, that he had service of five years after acquiring B.Ed qualification and he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the "seniormost undergraduate teacher". If such graduate teachers are not available, then the seniormost primary school teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. issued by Board of Public Examination etc. may be appointed. In other words, as per clause 2 it is sufficient if the graduate teacher with the qualifications mentioned therein has service equal to half the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher, who must be 'qualified' for being appointed as stated in the first clause. While computing the said period the rule making authority was obviously intending to give preference to a graduate teacher who was at least half the service of a 'qualified non-graduate teacher coming under third clause of the rule. By so interpreting, and construing the words 'seniormost undergraduate teacher' in clause 2 or the 'seniormost qualified undergraduate teacher' we would only be reading clause 2 as per the language in clause 1. 7. In our opinion the learned single judge was therefore very much right in construing the words 'under graduate teachers' in the second clause in Rule 45 as meaning qualified undergraduate teacher and not including unqualified undergraduate teacher. 8. With the above interpretation given by the learned single judge, it is clear that the person who has been appointed, Govindan Nambissan (fifth respondent) has more than half of the service of the qualified undergraduate teacher, namely, writ petitioner Karunakara Marar. The word 'under graduate teacher' in the second clause of Rule 45 could be applied to only under graduate teachers such as Karunakara Marar, the writ petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons the learned single judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 9. The word 'under graduate teacher' in the second clause of Rule 45 could be applied to only under graduate teachers such as Karunakara Marar, the writ petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons the learned single judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on paragraph 14 of the decision in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96) to say that the court has no power to add any words to any Section. We have no quarrel with the said submission. It is our view that the words 'qualified teacher' in clause 1 of Rule 45 would also govern clause 2 of Rule 45, and by reading clause 1 and clause 2 together it cannot be said that we are adding any words in clause 2. For the aforesaid reasons the appeals are dismissed.