JUDGMENT C.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster by the 5th respondent. His appointment was not approved by the 4th respondent as per Ext. P-1 order. The reasoning of the 4th respondent in Ext. P-1 is as follows: The post fell vacant on 1st April 1993. The post of Headmaster should be filled up by appointing a qualified hand who has the prescribed test qualification or who stands exempted from passing the test qualification by virtue of completion of 50 years of age. The petitioner at that time had neither acquired the test qualification nor attained 50 years of age. At the same time, the 6th respondent who is a graduate is qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. Against Ext. P-1, the 5th respondent filed Ext. P-2 appeal before third respondent. The third respondent by Ext. P-3 order rejected the appeal. Ext. P-3 was challenged by the 5th respondent before the second respondent and the second respondent also by Ext. P-5 order confirmed the same. On revision, the first respondent by Ext. P-7 order rejected the contentions of the 5th respondent and confirmed the orders passed by the educational authorities. 2. Sri M. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the senior most qualified teacher having S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. and therefore half the service mentioned in R.45 of Chap.14A of the K.E.R, must be counted with reference to the total service of the petitioner. If that is taken into consideration, the 6th respondent does not have half the service of the petitioner. R.45 of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. states that 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 arc not available in the school, the senior most primary school teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary School Assistant may be appointed. 3. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service arc not available in the school, the senior most primary school teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary School Assistant may be appointed. 3. The 'senior most undergraduate teacher' mentioned in R.45 was the subject matter of a decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in Raghavan Nair v. Balachandran Nair 1992 (1) KLT 390 . In the above case, a senior most undergraduate teacher was unqualified to be appointed as Headmaster. Therefore the question arose whether 'half the service' mentioned in R.45 must be counted with reference to the total service of the unqualified senior undergraduate teacher or with reference to the total service of a qualified non-graduate teacher. In that case the learned Single Judge held that the computation of half service should be with the service of a person otherwise 'qualified' to be appointed as Headmaster and not with the service of a person who was otherwise not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster for want of S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. The finding of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in the following words: "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 wore 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 'qualified5 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." 4. Sri N. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to distinguish the above ruling on the ground that the senior most undergraduate teachers in the above case were found to be otherwise not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster for want of SSLC. and T.T.C. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner is having the above two qualifications and is therefore fully qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. and T.T.C. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner is having the above two qualifications and is therefore fully qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. But the qualifications for appointment as Headmaster is not only S.S.L.G. and T.T.C. but also a pass in the Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The above test qualification has been made an obligatory qualification to the teachers for promotion as Headmaster of Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools under R.45B of Chap.14A of the K.E R. Therefore it is idle for the petitioner to contend that he is qualified to be appointed as Headmaster of the school on 1st April 1993, when the vacancy arose. The petitioner became qualified to be appointed as Headmaster only on 25th May 1993, the date on which he attained 50 years of age. Therefore on the crucial date of occurrence of the vacancy, the petitioner cannot aspire to be appointed as a Headmaster. Thus it is impossible to visualise a situation as on 1st April 1993 to count the service equal to half of the period of service of the senior most undergraduate teacher when there was none in the school. 5. R.45 mentions about the filling up of the post of Headmaster from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school. Thereafter the Rule deals with the competing claims of a graduate teacher and a non-graduate teacher. It is obvious that both the claims must be qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. Otherwise, there cannot be any competing claims between the two teachers. A graduate teacher can be given preference only if he has got service equal to half the period of service of the senior most undergraduate teacher. If such a graduate is not available, then the senior most primary school teacher with S.S.L.C. or T.T.C. or equivalent qualification can be appointed. It is difficult to accept the argument of the petitioner that persons with the above two qualifications alone can be considered for appointment ignoring the mandatory provision contained in R.45B of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. The claim of the graduate teacher has to be considered only when there is a fully qualified undergraduate teacher. It there is no fully qualified undergraduate teacher, there is no question of comparing the rival claims of the graduate teacher and non-graduate teacher. It there is no fully qualified undergraduate teacher, there is no question of comparing the rival claims of the graduate teacher and non-graduate teacher. Thus it cannot be -said that the petitioner is to be preferred to the 6th respondent on the ground that he does not possess half the service of the petitioner. If the petitioner was fully qualified as on 1st April 1993, there was no question of considering the case of the 6th respondent. It is admitted that the petitioner became eligible to be appointed as Headmaster only on 25th May 1993, in accordance with R.45B of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. Under these circumstances I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The Original petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.