Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a member of non-teaching staff working in the High School is eligible for appointment to the post of HS A (Hindi) in accordance with Notes 1 and 2 of R.1(1) of Chapter XIV- A of the Kerala Education Rules if there is no other teacher eligible for promotion to such post. Learned single judge held in view of sub-r.2 of R.43-B of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R.,if qualified teacher as mentioned in sub-r.1 are not available in the schools under the same educational agency for promotion to the post of High School Assistant in that language, qualified candidates from the outside may be appointed to the post. Learned Judge took the view that since the post of peon does not come within the feeder categories mentioned in R.43-B. qualified candidates from outside has to be considered for appointment to the post of High School Assistant even if non-teaching staff is qualified. 2. In order to, understand the legal provision we have to examine certain facts. We may describe the parties according to their status in the Writ Petition. Fourth" respondent was working as a Peon in Viswabharathi Model High School. She was appointed as Peon on 19.6.1984 and the appointment was approved. She had obtained all necessary qualification for being considered for appointment as H.S.A. Hindi. A retirement vacancy of H.S.A. Hindi arose in the school on 1.4.2000. There were no R.51-A claimants. Since the school is having only High School Section there was no claim from U.P. Section for appointment. The only person eligible to be considered for appointment to the said post was the 4th respondent. Manager however did not consider the claim of the 4th respondent and appointed the second petitioner vide Ext. PI order dated 1.8.2000. Appointment was approved by the District Education Officer vide order dated 23.9.2000. Claim raised by the 4th respondent was directed to be considered by the District Educational Officer by judgment of this Court in O.P. 19512/2000. District Educational Officer rejected her claim. Matter was taken up in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. Second respondent however allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of the 2nd petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the present Writ Petition was preferred. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed Ext. P6 order. District Educational Officer rejected her claim. Matter was taken up in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. Second respondent however allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of the 2nd petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the present Writ Petition was preferred. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed Ext. P6 order. Aggrieved by the same 4th respondent has filed this appeal. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel on either side. 3. Qualification prescribed for the post of HSA (Hindi) are as follows: 1. Academic qualification: Sahithyacharya of Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha with a pass in SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent. 2.Training qualifications : Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. The above mentioned qualifications are provided under R.2(b)(iv) of Chapter XXXI of KER. R.43-B deals with the manner in which the post of High School Assistant in a particular language be filled up. It is relevant to extract the said provision for easy reference: 43.B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in R.43, posts of full time High School Assistants in a particular language shall be filled up by promotion in the following order of preference: . (i) Lower Grade Language Teachers who have the prescribed qualifications in that Language for promotion to the post of High School Assistants in that language at the time of occurrence of the vacancy and who had given option in writing as per G.O. (MS) 612/Edn. dated 10.11.1964 to continue as Lower Grade Language Teachers. (ii) Part time High School Assistant in that Language. (iii)Other Lower Grade Language Teachers in that Language. (iv)Regular Primary teachers having the prescribed qualification. (v)Craft and Specialist teachers having the prescribed qualifications. (vi) If no teacher with the prescribed qualifications is available in the categories mentioned above, Lower Grade Language Teachers in any other Language having the prescribed qualifications. (Note:-Promotion under this sub-rule shall be made according to seniority from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of vacancy) (2) If qualified teachers as mentioned in sub-r.(1) are not available in schools under the same Educational Agency for promotion to the post of High School Assistants in that language, qualified candidates from out side may be appointed to that post. Sub-r.(2) of R.43-B stipulates that if qualified teachers as mentioned in sub-r.(1) are not available in schools under the same Educational Agency for promotion to the post of High School Assistants in that language, qualified candidates from outside may be appointed to that post. R.43-B was inserted by G.O. (P) 71/72/S.Edn. dated 22.5.1972 in Gazette dated 12.9.1972. So long as the above mentioned provision stands, it would appear, a non-teaching staff of the school has no legal right to claim appointment to the post of High School Assistant. Non-teaching staff of the Government Schools also has no avenues of further promotion. Government therefore decided to amend the rule so as to give some avenues of promotion to those categories of persons also. Government therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under S.36 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 issued the Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 1982 by which Notes 1 and 2 were inserted after sub-r.(1) of R.1 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. We may extract the entire provision for easy reference. 1(1) Managers of Private Schools shall appoint only candidates who possess the prescribed qualification. As far as High School classes are concerned the appointment shall be made with due regard to the requirement of subjects as determined by Director of Public Instruction with reference to the curricula of Studies. Whenever vacancy occurs, the Manager shall follow the directions issued by Government from time to time, for ascertaining the availability of qualified hand and for filling up vacancy. Note:- (1) A member of the non-teaching staff under the category of Clerks, Peons, Sweepers and other staff shall also be eligible for appointment as teacher provided he has the prescribed qualifications and that there is no teacher eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post under these rules. Note:- (2) If there are more than one claimant for appointment as teacher under these categories, preference shall be given in the order of Clerks, Peons Sweepers and other staff. Note:- (2) If there are more than one claimant for appointment as teacher under these categories, preference shall be given in the order of Clerks, Peons Sweepers and other staff. If there are more than one claimant under a particular category, the order of preference shall be according to the date of their first appointment, if their date of first appointment be the same, then preference shall be given with reference to age, the order being given first preference; (2) The age limit and the relaxation thereof for appointment applicable to teachers of Government Schools shall apply mutatis mutandis to teachers of aided schools. The date of determination of age for eligibility for appointment shall be the 1st January of the year in which the appointment is to be made. It is also relevant to extract the explanatory note to the said amendment which reads as follows: Since there is no avenues for promotions of non-teaching staff Government have decided to make provisions for promotion of qualified non-teaching staff to the post of clerk and teachers. The amendment is intended to achieve this object. We have already indicated that the amended notification was issued on 17th September 1982 and published in the Gazette on 19th October 1982. By the above amendment a special right has been granted in favour of the non-teaching staff for claiming appointment to the post of High School Assistant if no qualified teacher is available for promotion or appointment under the rules. When the above mentioned rule was amended Legislature was aware of existence of R.43-B of Chapter XIV-A of KER. On a conjoint reading of sub-r.2 of R.43-B along with Note (1)of R.1(1) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. it is evident that a member of the non-teaching staff under category of clerk, peon, sweepers and other staff shall be eligible for appointment as teacher provided he/she has the prescribed qualifications and that there is no teacher eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post under the rules. Apparently, it would appear that there is a conflict between Notes 1 and 2 of R.1(1) of Chapter XIVA and sub-r.(2) of R.43B ie., as per the provisions contained in R.1, a member of the non-teaching staff who is having the prescribed qualification can get appointment as Language Teacher, but as per R.43B, if qualified members of the teaching staff are not available, the Manager may go for recruitment from the open market. The learned Single Judge took the view that the provisions contained in R.43B being a special provision, the mandate contained in Notes 1 and 2 of R.1(1) will not apply. 4. We feel that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct. In fact, sub-r.(1) of R.43B is of course a special provision regarding appointment to the post of Language Teacher. But sub-r.(2) of R.43B is only a general provision which declares the usual general power of the Manager to make appointment in the absence of any eligible hands for promotion. In fact, the said provision is redundant. The Manager is empowered to make appointment of teachers in the Aided School managed by him by virtue of S.11 of the Kerala Education Act. R.1(1) of Chapter XIVA reiterates this position. It is a settled position in law that a legislation can be a special legislation in relation to a particular subject and a general legislation in relation to certain other subjects. For example, the Supreme Court has held that Indian Electricity Supply Act is a special legislation in relation to generation and distribution of electricity whereas it is a general legislation in relation to prescribing service conditions of its employees (See U.R Electricity Board v. Hari Sankar Jain, AIR 1979 SC 65). This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court while considering the provision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act. The Apex Court said that in relation to nationalisation of life insurance business, the said Act is a special legislation whereas in relation to prescription of service conditions of the employees of the Corporation, it is only a general legislation (See D.J. Bhadur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1980 SC 2181). The said position, we feel, will apply in relation to a particular Section in an enactment also. The said position, we feel, will apply in relation to a particular Section in an enactment also. In the case at hand, sub-r.(1) of R.43B is a special provision whereas sub-r.(2) dealing with the power of the management to appoint from open market is only general provision. In fact, the said sub-rule is redundant because even in its absence, the. Manager has got the power. But Notes 1 and 2 of sub-r. l(i) are special provisions dealing with appointment of non-teaching staff to the vacancies of teachers. Therefore, going by the maxim generalia specialibus non-derogant, the notes of sub-r.1(1) will prevail over sub-r.2 of R.43B. 5. Further, it can be seen that R.43B was inserted with effect from 12.9.1972. Sub-r.(2) of R.43 B was in the statute book from the said date. As mentioned earlier, Notes 1 and 2 of sub-r. l(i) was inserted with effect from 19.10.1982. So, if there is a conflict with two provisions that which is enacted later in point of time will prevail over the other. In Crawfords Interpretation of Laws, it is said: "But where there is irreconcilable conflict, the provisions of the amendment must prevail over those of the original statute on the theory that the former constitutes the last expression of the will of the legislator." In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, it is said: "If two sections of the same statute are repugnant; the known rule is that the last must prevail." In the light of the above said principles, we are of the view that the Manager can go for open market candidate under R.43B(2) only after examining the case of the non-teaching staff as provided under Notes 1 and 2 of R.1(1); 6. Yet another principle also persuaded us to take the view which we have just now indicated. If the interpretation accepted by the learned Single Judge is upheld, the members of the non-teaching staff who acquired the qualification for appointment as a Language Teacher will be left in the lurch. Among the non-teaching staff, they along will be discriminated. The framers of the rule cannot be intended to bring about such an unjust result. If the interpretation accepted by the learned Single Judge is upheld, the members of the non-teaching staff who acquired the qualification for appointment as a Language Teacher will be left in the lurch. Among the non-teaching staff, they along will be discriminated. The framers of the rule cannot be intended to bring about such an unjust result. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that "the Court will interpret a statute as far as possible agreeably to justice and reason and that in case of two or more interpretations, one which is more reasonable and just will be adopted, for there is always a presumption against the law maker intending injustice and unreason". (Madhava Rao Sindhya v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530). In view of all the above reasons, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and uphold Ext. P6.