JUDGMENT C. S. Rjan, J. 1. The first petitioner in the original petition is the Manager of an Aided School. The second petitioner has been described as the Head Teacher of the above aided School. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the school with effect from 1.6.1991. The Manager appointed the second petitioner as the Headmistress of the School by Ext. P2 proceedings. By Ext. P3 the fourth respondent rejected the above appointment of the second petitioner as Headmistress. The reason for the rejection of her appointment was that as per R.45 of Chap.14A KER five years teaching service is required after the acquisition of graduation and B.Ed. qualification. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, she acquired the B.Ed. qualification only in the examination conducted in April, 1986, the result of which was declared only later. Therefore, she did not have five years teaching experience after acquisition of the B.Ed. Degree. The Manager filed an . appeal before the third respondent which was rejected by Ext. P4. In Ext. P4, the 3rd respondent found that the 5th respondent is the fully qualified hand for holding the post of Headmistress, who satisfied the requirements of R.45B of Chap.14A KER. Thus, the 3rd respondent directed the Manager to appoint the rightful claimant for the post of Headmaster of the school. The further appeal of the Manager to the second respondent was also rejected by the second respondent by Ext. P5 order. Ext. P5 shows that following service details of the 2nd petitioner and 5th respondent. 1 Smt. T.R. Suvarnavally Date of Commencement of continuous service 21.7.75 Qualification with date B.A. September 1972 B.Ed. April, 86. Date of publication of B.Ed. Degree Examination is 22.8.86 Passed Account Test (Lower) 2. Smt. Daisy Kuruvilla Date of Commencement of continuous service 22.7.1976 Qualification with date B.Sc. 1971 B.Ed. 1975 Passd Accounts Test (Lower) 6/90 1. Smt. T. R. Suvarnavally has not completed 5 years service after the acquisition of B.Ed. degree at the time of occurrence of vacancy in the post of Headmaster, i.e., 1.6.91. Her completion of 5 years service with effect from 22.8.91. As Smt. Daisy Kurivilla is fully qualified at the time of occurrence of vacancy with effect from 1.6.91." The further revision filed by the Manager was dismissed by the first respondent by Ext. P7 order dated. 14.12.1995. In Ext. Her completion of 5 years service with effect from 22.8.91. As Smt. Daisy Kurivilla is fully qualified at the time of occurrence of vacancy with effect from 1.6.91." The further revision filed by the Manager was dismissed by the first respondent by Ext. P7 order dated. 14.12.1995. In Ext. P5, the matter was dealt with by the 1st respondent as follows: "Now, the Manager has filed a revision petition before the Government. The question/ issue involved here is whether Smt. T.V. Suvarnavally has completed 5 years teaching service as on 1.6.91 when the vacancy of H/M arose consequent on the retirement of Sri. K. Unnikrishanan Nambiar as 31.5.1991. Sri. Nambiar was on special leave during the month of June and hence date of occurrence of vacancy was 1.6.1991. Government have examined the matter in detail. The fact that the U.P. School Headmasters have to supervise the school in addition to the routine works as Class Teachers itself indicate that their duties and responsibilities are different from U.P. School Assistants. In such cases, the concessions (viz. the day following the last day of the examination) enunciated under R.28(bbb) of general rules cannot be made available. In the circumstances Government uphold the order of the Director of Public Instruction. The appeal petition filed by the Manager is therefore, rejected. The Deputy Director of Education will make immediate action to implement the order. The stay communicated by Government vide letter read 3rd is hereby vacated". 2. Ext. P7 was challenged by the petitioners in O.P. No. 691 of 1996 which resulted in Ext. P8 judgment. The only question decided by this Court in Ext. P8 was that Ext. P7 was passed by Sri. Chandrasekharan Pillai, Deputy Secretary while the arguments were held by the Deputy Secretary, Sri. Pradeep Kumar. Therefore, following the principle that the person who heard the matter should decide the issue, the revision petition was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh hearing after affording an opportunity to the affected parties a right of hearing. Accordingly, Ext. P12 was passed by the first respondent upholding the stand taken by the first respondent in Ext. P7 order. The operative portion of Ext. P12 is as follows: "After having heard the affected parties Government have examined the case afresh and come to the conclusion that Smt. Daisy Kuruvila is the rightful claimant to hold the post of Headmaster. P12 was passed by the first respondent upholding the stand taken by the first respondent in Ext. P7 order. The operative portion of Ext. P12 is as follows: "After having heard the affected parties Government have examined the case afresh and come to the conclusion that Smt. Daisy Kuruvila is the rightful claimant to hold the post of Headmaster. Under the circumstances in Government are pleased to uphold the orders issued in the G.O. read as 1st paper above. The revision petition is, therefore, rejected". Learned counsel Sri. P.V. Madhavan Nambiar appearing on behalf of the petitioners strongly contended that Ext. P12 is bad in law because it only reiterated the finding in Ext. P7 without considering the points raised by the petitioners after the matter was remitted back to the first respondent by this court. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent should havepassed another speaking order considering all the objections raised by the petitioners. Therefore, it is argued that the cryptic order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside on the above sole ground. But I am not in a position to accept the above argument at all. In this case, the petitioners have put forward their case before respondents 4, 3 and 2, the hierarchy officers under the KER and all the above three officers considered elaborately the points raised by the petitioners both legally and factually. The above orders are evidenced by Exts. P3, P4 and P5. the first respondent was only thereafter considering a revision petition under R.92 of Chap.14A KER. The first respondent was completely agreeing with the findings of the three lower authorities. By Ext. P7 order the revisional authority once rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners by an elaborate order. This Court also did not actually set aside Ext. P7 order but only remitted back the case for fresh hearing. After hearing the affected parties by Ext. P12 order the first respondent fully endorsed not only the views expressed in Ext. P7 but also in Exts. P3, P4 and P5. Thus, when the revisional authority agreed with the findings of the three authorities below it, I do not think it is necessary to pass another elaborate speaking order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that under R.45 Chap.14A KER a graduate teacher need not have five years' experience in teaching after acquisition of B.Ed. P3, P4 and P5. Thus, when the revisional authority agreed with the findings of the three authorities below it, I do not think it is necessary to pass another elaborate speaking order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that under R.45 Chap.14A KER a graduate teacher need not have five years' experience in teaching after acquisition of B.Ed. Degree for appointment of Headmaster of U.P. School. It is only when he is pitted against a rival non graduate claimant the five years teaching experience after B.Ed. Degree is necessary. In other words, the petitioners' argument is that the rule applies only in a dispute between a graduate and a non graduate and not between two graduates. This court in one of the earliest rulings reported in Akkarishetty v. Manager, S.R.A. U.P. School (ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 14) has taken the view that the rule applies in the case of contest between two graduate teachers also. This court in a Full Bench decision reported in Raghavan v. State of Kerala ( 1987 (2) KLT 942 ) has held that if a graduate teacher is not qualified for preference he will have to give place to the graduate teacher qualified for preference. The fifth respondent satisfies the preferential qualification also as against a senior undergraduate teacher. I had also occasion to consider a similar question in O.P. No. 12683/1996. In the above ruling I have held as follows: "6. Analysing the whole scheme of the above rules contained in Chap.14A KER it can be seen that teaching experience is a necessary qualification for appointment as Headmaster. While for appointment as Headmaster of a High School the minimum graduate service is 12 years, for appointment as Headmaster of U.P. School it is five years teaching experience afteracquisition of B.Ed. Degree. Therefore, it is idle to contend that a graduate need satisfy the minimum teaching experience only if he is pitted against senior undergraduate teacher in the matter of appointment of the Headmasters. As far as the undergraduate is concerned he must possess S.S.L.C., T.T.C. and the test qualifications." Confronted with the above unassailable situation the petitioners have amended the Original Petition with the following prayer: "(i)(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is properly appointed by the Manager as Head Teacher being seniormost among the two seniormost B.Ed. Degree holders as there are no secondary trained teacher as claimants senior to them after declaring that the word "acquisition" in R.45 of Chap.14A of the KER as conveying a meaning as experience of 5 years from one day after last date of B.Ed. Degree examination or by striking down the words "experience" after 5 years of acquisition of B.Ed. degree as hit by Art.14 of the Constitution of India". The petitioners have raised additional grounds to the effect that there is no reasonable basis for prescribing the teaching experience of five years after the acquisition of B.Ed. qualification and that the teaching experience which one is having before and after the acquisition of B.Ed. has no difference in quality. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that such differentiation classification is hit by Art.14 of the Constitution of India. 4. It cannot now disputed that the burden is heavy on the petitioners to allege and prove that there is discrimination and that the classification is hit by Art.14 of the Constitution of India. A reading of the additional grounds mentioned in the amended petition will go to show that the petitioner has not made out any foundation for a successful attack on R.45 as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The Bachelor of Degree in Education is intended for a person to get himself equipped with the art of teaching. The training qualification has been made compulsory for the post of a teacher or Headmaster because it is highly necessary in order to teach the students and make them familiar with the knowledge in the various subjects included in the curriculum. An untrained teacher may not be able to teach in the same capacity as a trained teacher teaches. The experience of a teacher before acquiring the training qualification will definitely be inferior to the teaching experience after acquisition of the training qualification. Therefore, there is a nexes between the nature of teaching experience prescribed under the rule and the object sought to be achieved by the Rule. 5. The learned counsel made an attempt to put forward a case that when the second petitioner wrote the examination in April, 1986 the teaching experience which she had thereafter is equal to a teaching experience after the acquisition of the degree. 5. The learned counsel made an attempt to put forward a case that when the second petitioner wrote the examination in April, 1986 the teaching experience which she had thereafter is equal to a teaching experience after the acquisition of the degree. According to the learned counsel, merely because the result of the examinations were announced only in August, 1986 the teaching experience which she had in June, July, and August can never be termed as teaching experience before the acquisition of the degree. But it is to be remembered that the petitioner can claim that she had acquired the degree only when the results were announced in August, 1996. When the rule says it is five years experience in teaching after acquisition of B.Ed. degree, their is no warrant in interpreting the word 'acquisition' as after 'writing the examination'. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners' attack on the Rule under Art.14 of the Constitution has no substance. 6. The 5th respondent obtained the B.Ed. degree in 1975. She had five years teaching experience as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, namely, 1.6.1991. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the valid claim of the 5th respondent for the post of Headmaster which fell vacant on 1.6.1991. 7. The Original Petition is therefore, devoid of any merit and is dismissed. The fifth respondent was agitating her claim for the last six years. Therefore, the Manager is directed to appoint the fifth respondent as Headmistress of the School with effect from 1.6.1991 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents 2 to 4 are also directed to take immediate steps to see that the orders passed by them evidenced by Exts. P3, P4 and P5 and upheld hi Exts. P7 and P12 are implemented forthwith. Original Petition is dismissed.