Judgment :- The prayer in this writ petition is to declare that Rule 45 Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Educational Rules (hereinafter to be referred to 'the rules') in so far as it gives a preferential treatment to graduates for appointment as U.P. School Headmasters as unconstitutional and invalid and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are Upper Primary School Assistants. The 1st petitioner is also the Secretary of the Kerala Aided Primary T.T.C. Holders Association. They are qualified to be appointed as Headmasters in U.P. Schools under Chapter XXXI of the Rules read with rule 2(7) Chapter I of the Rules. Rule 44(1) Chapter XIV-A of the Rules provides as follows:- "44(1) The appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared and maintained under clauses (a) and (b) as the case may be of Rule 34. The Manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the Rules laid down in the matter. A teacher, if he is aggrieved by such appointment will have the right of appeal to the Department. Note:--Whenever the Manager intends to appoint a person as Headmaster other than the senior claimant, the Manager shall obtain a written consent from such senior claimant, renouncing his claim permanently. Such consent shall have the approval of the Educational Officer concerned". The above provision lays down the ordinary rule and Rule 34 Chapter XIV-A provides that every management shall prepare and maintain a staff list or seniority list of teachers. Ordinarily, the senior most teacher will be appointed as Headmaster of the school in this case, of Upper Primary School. But Rule 45 makes a special provision which is in the following terms: "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 filed 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 senior most undergraduate teacher. 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 senior most 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 senior most Primary Schools 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". This is a provision made giving weightage to graduate teachers. This enables the graduate teachers to be appointed overlooking the seniority of the non graduate teachers as Headmaster, provided the requisite graduate service is secured by the graduate teacher. It is this rule that has been challenged. The only challenge is on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is now fairly established that classification based on educational attainment can be a valid classification for Article J 4 of the Constitution. Classification on the basis of educational qualifications made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency cannot be considered as violative of Article 14. Educational qualifications have been recognised as a basis for classification for the purpose of Article 14 of the Constitution. Ir. the decision in Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Assn. v. State of Kerala 1990 (1) KLT 825 = (1990) 2 SCC 502 the Supreme Court held that: "It is settled that classification founded on intelligible differentia is permitted provided the classification made has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In other words, those grouped together must possess a common characteristic justifying their inclusion in the group, but distinguishing them from those excluded and performance of this exercise must bear a rational nexus with the reason for the exercise". In Jaghnath v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 2817, the Supreme Court held that: "Academic pursuit and experience are two primary sources of learning. In Jaghnath v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 2817, the Supreme Court held that: "Academic pursuit and experience are two primary sources of learning. A compositor's job in a printing press is a skilled job requiring special technique. In such a job it would be reasonable to measure the standards of skill by length of experience. The High Court, in our view, fell into error in quashing the classification based on experience arising out of length of service". In State of Mysore v. P, Marasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In that case it was held under classification of two grades of tracers in the new Mysore Slate, one for matriculate tracers with a higher pay sclae and the other for non-matriculate tracers with a lower pay scale is not violative of Arts.14 or 16 of the Constitution. In State of J & K v. T.N. Kohosa, AIR 1974 SC 1 it was held that the rule which provided that graduates shall be eligible for promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders did not violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The purpose sought to be achieved here is educational excellence. If that be so, giving preference to graduate teachers to head the institution cannot be considered discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of the above, I find no merit in the challenge against Rule 45 Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner has already been appointed as Headmaster on 1-6-1990 and. therefore, he may not have any grievance now. There is no merit in the original petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.