JUDGMENT M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The appellant was the unsuccessful petitioner in O.P.No.9244 of 1991. She, a Head Clerk in the service of the first respondent Board, had staked a claim for getting a declaration that being a graduate, she had to be preferred over non graduates, respondents 4 to 6, in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent. 2. The learned single Judge found that Ext. P2 are the Regulations which govern appointment to the posts. The posts of Junior Superintendents were not originally there in the Board and were newly created on 1-2-1988. Qualification of graduation is prescribed for the above post. On 9-6-1989, by a fresh notification it had been specifically provided that in respect of existing members of staff who were in service as on 4-2-1988, such qualifications were not to be insisted. Respondents 4 to 6 are seniors to the petitioner and the stand taken by the Board was that as and when vacancies arose, the seniors had been preferred as had been provided. This stand was accepted by the learned single Judge. 3. The appeal only reiterates the contentions taken in the original petition, that the 'unqualified' seniors though could be permitted to retain their positions before the amendment, but when promotions were made, it had to be with due deference to the Rules, and graduation ought to have been insisted. It is difficult for us to accept that argument.When the Regulations lay down that 'nothing contained in this appendix shall adversely affect those persons who were in the service of the Board prior to 4-2-1988', the restrictive interpretation canvassed by the appellant may not be proper or justified. 4. The appellant contends that Ext. P3 was subsequently introduced by exerting pressure on the Government, and it was not in public interest. But the petitioner has failed to substantiate her arguments. The allegations are denied in the counter affidavit of the respondents, and of course it has come out that the existing employees had submitted representations highlighting their grievances. The notification (Ext. P3) has been issued after a due examination of the relevant aspects. The appellant apparently is too ambitious to get a march over her seniors on the ground that she is a graduate. The Regulations did not permit this, ostensibly on equitable grounds. The notification (Ext. P3) has been issued after a due examination of the relevant aspects. The appellant apparently is too ambitious to get a march over her seniors on the ground that she is a graduate. The Regulations did not permit this, ostensibly on equitable grounds. When stipulation of higher qualifications are introduced for the first time, we see no impropriety in incorporating provisions safeguarding interests of existing staff. This is especially so when the posts are ministerial in nature and possession of higher academic qualifications or special proficiency is directly not relevant. 5. The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 stating that it is brought in as a 'Note'. A note to the Rules commands as much respect as the statute. Authority for the above proposition could be found in the decision reported in 1976 KLT 506 (Krishna Varma Raja v. Dist. Educational Officer). We also see that the note as above in the nature of a proviso was brought in by Ext. P3, specifically to ward of the mischief that had been there when the new regulations were brought in. It may adversely affect the promotion prospects of the appellant, but nonetheless is intended to take care of other unqualified personnel already in service. As suggested by the appellant, we are unable to read down the note. We are of the opinion that none of the petitioner's legal rights have been infringed. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.