Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. W.A.1785/2000 was preferred by the Manager of Mannayad Lakshmivilasam L.P. School challenging the judgment in O.R 6322/2000 by which learned Single Judge directed the Manager to appoint the first respondent herein who was petitioner in the O.R as a Lower Primary School Assistant in the appellant-school. O.R 4696/2000 was preferred by the Manager of the school challenging Ext. P5 communication, dated 27th January, 2000 issued by the Assistant Educational Officer directing appointment of Smt. K. Rajithakumari, first respondent in the appeal, as L.P.S.A. 2. We are narrating the facts we get in O.R 6322/2000. Petitioner Rajithakumari was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in the Mannayad Lakshmivilasam L.P. School (hereinafter called the school) from 19th November 1996 to 16th February 1997 in a leave vacancy as per order, dated 19th November 1996 issued by the Manager of the School. The School is an Aided School coming within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Educational Officer, Thalassery. Appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the A.E.O. by order, dated 15th March 1999. Petitioner was subsequently thrown out due to want of vacancy. Consequently, she became a R.51A claimant in the post of L.P.S.A. 3. Headmistress of the School retired on 31st March 1999 on superannuation. The next senior-most L.P.S.A. was promoted as Headmistress. Consequently, a vacancy arose in the post of L.RS.A. in the School. Petitioner being the legitimate claimant, should have been appointed to the said post with effect from 1st June 1999: Petitioner then preferred a representation, dated 21st June 1999 before the Manager requesting that she may be appointed as L.P.S.A. in the School. Since no action was taken by the Manager petitioner preferred O.R 18915/99 before this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition giving direction to the Assistant Educational Officer to give appropriate direction to the Manager to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law. No action has been taken on the basis of this Court's Judgment. Consequently, petitioner sent a lawyer notice to the Assistant Educational Officer. Later Petitioner was served with a communication, dated 24th January 2000 from the office of the Assistant Educational Officer stating that directions have already been issued to the Manager to appoint the petitioner. Since no action has been taken, again petitioner brought up the matter before the Assistant Educational Officer. Petitioner subsequently received Ext. Later Petitioner was served with a communication, dated 24th January 2000 from the office of the Assistant Educational Officer stating that directions have already been issued to the Manager to appoint the petitioner. Since no action has been taken, again petitioner brought up the matter before the Assistant Educational Officer. Petitioner subsequently received Ext. P6 communication, dated 2nd February 2000 stating that directions have already been issued to the Manager to appoint the petitioner. Since no action has been taken by the Manager to appoint the petitioner, she filed O.P. 6322/2000 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Manager to appoint her as L.P.S.A. and also for other consequential reliefs. Manager in the meantime, preferred O.P. 4696/2000 challenging the letter, dated 27th January 2000 from the Assistant Educational Officer directing appointment of Rajithakumar as L.P.S.A. When the matter came, up for hearing we heard counsel for the Manager Sri. K.V. Sohan as well as Sri. E.V. Nayanar, counsel appearing for the teacher. 4. It is not in dispute that the teacher Rajithakumari is a R.51-A claimant. Main contention raised by the counsel for the Manager was that she was not qualified to be appointed as L.P.S.A. According to the Manager, the qualification is prescribed for the post of L.P.S.A. in R.4 of Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules, which reads as follows: 1. Lower Primary School Assistant: A pass in SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent and a pass in T.T.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. Counsel submitted that B.Ed, is not enumerated as a training qualification for appointment as L.P.S.A. Counsel referred to G.O. (Ms.) 120/88, dated 12th July 1988 and submitted that in aided L.P. Schools and L.P. Sections, fresh appointment to the post of Lower Primary School Assistant would be exclusively set apart for T.T.C. holders. Counsel submitted this G.O. was issued in consonance with R.51-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Counsel submitted that though a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mat hew v. State of Kerala (1992 (2) KLT 116) has taken the view that B.Ed, is also a training qualification which could be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment as L.P.S.A. and U.P.S.A. the said decision was rendered by this Court on concession. Counsel submitted that though a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mat hew v. State of Kerala (1992 (2) KLT 116) has taken the view that B.Ed, is also a training qualification which could be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment as L.P.S.A. and U.P.S.A. the said decision was rendered by this Court on concession. Counsel further submitted that the said judgment was relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Tulasibhai Anima v. Asst. Educational Officer (1993 (2) KLT 245). Counsel submitted since the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is incorrect the same also would not stand. Referring to R.4A of Chapter XXXI K.E.R. counsel submitted the same would be applicable in the case of academic qualification possessed by the candidate and not training qualification. Counsel therefore wanted to reconsider the judgment of the learned Single judge referred to hereinbefore. 5. Counsel appearing for the teacher Sri. Nayanar submitted that the learned 'Single Judge has rendered the judgment not on concession but on the basis of the interpretation of R.3 of Chapter XXXI and Rr. 3 A and 4-A. Counsel further submitted that eventhough R.4 of Chapter XXXI of the K.E.R. says that the training qualification for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant is stated to be T.T.C. on the basis of R.4-A Educational Officer shall be competent to approve the appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications provided they have any other training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala. Counsel submitted that B.Ed, is the training qualification approved by the Government of Kerala and therefore R.3A of Chapter XXXI read with R.4-A would indicate that B.Ed is also a training qualification which would be sufficient for appointment to the post of L.P.S.A. 6. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. We cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the Manager that the decision was rendered by the learned Single Judge on concession. Learned Judge posed the question whether a person with B Ed. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. We cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the Manager that the decision was rendered by the learned Single Judge on concession. Learned Judge posed the question whether a person with B Ed. Degree could be appointed as L.P.S.A. or U.P.S.A. in an Aided School and answered as follows: "As per R.3(1) and 4(1) of Chapter XXXI K.E.R.,T.T.C, is one of the basic qualifications for one to get appointment as L.P.S.A. or U.P.S.A. Rules 3A and 4A allows the Educational Officers to approve appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications provided they have any of the training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala. The training qualification approved by Government of Kerala contemplated by Rr. 3 A and 4A can only be training qualifications other than TTC. Government have nowhere stated that B.Ed, is not a higher training qualification than T.T.C. nor have they got a case that B.Ed, is not a training qualification. In this circumstance under R.3 A and 4 A of Chapter XXXI K.E.R. Educational Authorities are to approve the appointments of B.Ed. degree holders as Lower Primary School Assistants and Upper Primary School Assistants. The contrary view taken by the Government in Ext. P-1 is against the provisions contained in Rr. 3 A and 4A. Ext. P-1 executive order cannot in any way affect the statutory rule continued in Rr. 3 A and 4A of Chapter XXXI K.E.R. So Ext. P-1 order must be taken as one issued contrary to the provisions contained in Rr. 3A and 4A of Chapter XXXI K.E.R:" It is clear from the above mentioned pronouncement that the learned Single Judge definitely came to the conclusion that B.Ed, degree is a training qualification which was approved by the Government for appointment to the post of L.P.S.A. and U.P.S.A. 7. Division Bench of this Court in 1993 (2) KLT 245 (supra) has also held as follows: "A reading of the second part of R.45A would show that that not only a T.T.C. issued by the Board of Public Examination is a requirement, but also any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant". Division Bench of this Court in 1993 (2) KLT 245 (supra) has also held as follows: "A reading of the second part of R.45A would show that that not only a T.T.C. issued by the Board of Public Examination is a requirement, but also any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant". The Court held that even if the respondent-writ petitioner does not have T.T.C., it will be sufficient if she has any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. Bench also referred to the decision in 1992 (2) KLT 116 (supra) and approved the same which is evident from last paragraph of the judgment of the Division Bench. 8. We are therefore of the view on reading the learned Single Judge's judgement. as well as the Division Bench Judgment give no room for doubt that this Court has taken the view that B.Ed, is an equivalent training qualification for appointment to the post of L.P.S.A. and U.P.S.A. It is on the basis of that judgment the Government has subsequently issued clarificatory order which was in force for nearly a decade. We may in this case hasten to add that it is the very same Management who appointed the teacher to the post of L.P.S.A. If the teacher was not qualified the Manager would not have appointed her to the post of L.P.S.A. earlier. In fact, that appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer rendering her as a R.51-A claimant. By virtue of the said right under R.51A the teacher has staked a claim of appointment to the permanent vacancy. In the abovementioned circumstance we find no reason to interfere with the orders issued by the Assistant Educational Officer.