Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the petitioner. Original Petition was filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P2 and P3 orders. 2. A vacancy of Headmistress arose in the D.V.N.S.S. Upper Primary School Annoor on 31.5.1995. Manager appointed the third respondent in the O.P., Smt. Sumathykutty Amma as Teacher-in-Charge with effect from 1.6.1995. Appointment of the third respondent as Teacher-in-Charge was approved vide order dated 20.11.1995. petitioner, Smt. Ushakumari, objected to the said appointment, and filed are presentation to that effect before the Manager. Manager then sent her representation to the Assistant Educational Officer. Assistant Educational Officer vide his letter dated 14.2.1996 informed the Manager that petitioner was not eligible for preferential claim as per rule 45 of Chapter XIV of K.E.R. since she had not put in five years of service after acquiring the training qualification. It was also stated that she had not got service equal to one-half of the period of service of the senior most under graduate teacher. However, it is seen that on a letter sent by the Manager to the Director of Public Instruction, the Director of Public Instruction replied vide letter dated 15.2.1996 stating that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Headmistress of the School. Accordingly petitioner was appointed as Headmistress of the School with effect from 23.2.1996. However, the said appointment was not approved by the Assistant Educational Officer. 3. The third respondent, Smt. Sumathykutty Amma completed 50 years of age in the meantime, and consequently raised a claim that she is permanently exempted from passing the test under rule 44B(2) of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. She also approached this Court and filed O.P. No. 4337 of 1996. This Court disposed of the matter directing the Government to consider the matter. Government now passed Ext. P3 order holding that Smt. Sumathykutty Amma is entitled to get appointment as regular Headmistress with effect from 24.4.1996 on completion of 50 years of age. Those orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned single judge found no infirmity in the order passed by the Government. Hence the Writ Petition was dismissed. 4. Counsel for the appellant, Sri. Ramesh Babu, submitted that petitioner was the only teacher in the School having requisite qualification at the time of occurrence of vacancy. Those orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned single judge found no infirmity in the order passed by the Government. Hence the Writ Petition was dismissed. 4. Counsel for the appellant, Sri. Ramesh Babu, submitted that petitioner was the only teacher in the School having requisite qualification at the time of occurrence of vacancy. According to him learned judge committed an error in interpreting rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. Counsel submitted if the interpretation given by the learned single judge is accepted, if there is an undergraduate teacher in the same school who was even junior to a graduate teacher, would be entitled to be appointed as Headmistress if he had passed the Account Test (Lower) while the graduate teacher, his senior, with superior qualifications would be denied appointment on the basis of her superior qualification. According to him, R.45 does not prescribe that an undergraduate teacher should possess teaching experience for promotion as Headmistress. In any view of the matter, counsel submitted, the decision rendered by this Court in Ushakumari v. State of Kerala 1996 (2) KLT 1003 has already been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in O.P. No. 10125 of 1989. 5. Counsel for the third respondent on the other hand contended that appellant had not completed 5 years of teaching experience after acquiring the B.Ed, qualification. According to him, a junior graduate teacher can be preferred to a senior if he fulfils the conditions laid down in Rule 45. Counsel also referred to an order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5030-31 of 1993. 6. We notice that the principle laid down in Ushakumari v. State of Kerala 1996 (2) K.L.T.1003) was specifically overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in O.P. No. 10125 of 1989. Full Bench interpreted rule 45 and held as follows: "We do not understand the above provision to mean that even if the graduate teacher is the senior most in the School he cannot claim promotion unless he has completed 5 years of service after acquisition of B.Ed, degree. If a different interpretation is given the effect would be that the senior graduate teacher is placed at a disadvantage as against the case of an undergraduate teacher. If a different interpretation is given the effect would be that the senior graduate teacher is placed at a disadvantage as against the case of an undergraduate teacher. That is if under-graduate teacher is test qualified for promotion and if he is the senior most, he can claim promotion as Headmaster, on the other hand, if the senior-most test qualified teacher is a graduate teacher he can claim promotion only after completing 5 years teaching experience." 7. In the instant case facts reveal that petitioner was qualified at the time of occurrence of the vacancy and the third respondent, Smt. Sumathykutty Amma was not test qualified. She became qualified only on attaining the age of 50 years that is on 24.4.1996. Since the Full Bench has already held that the requirement of five years service for a graduate teacher as per the provisions contained under Rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A will be relevant, the claims of the parties have to be worked out on the basis of the Full Bench decision of this Court. 8. In view of the above mentioned reasons, and in view of the fact that Full Bench has specifically overruled the principles laid down in Ushakumari v. State of Kerala 1996 (2) KLT1003, judgment under appeal, we allow this appeal. Consequently there will be a direction to respondents 1,2 and 4 to work out the rights of the parties on the basis of the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.