Judgment :- Koshy, J. Short question to be decided in these two writ appeals is whether a language teacher with L.T.T.C. (Language Teachers' Training Certificate) or with Vidwan title can be appointed as Headmistress in U.P. School or L.P. School. In other words, whether L.T.T.C. can be treated as equivalent to B.Ed., T.T.C. or T.C.H. or equivalent training qualification prescribed. Rule 45 Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short KER), deals with appointment of Headmaster in U.P. Schools and Rule 45A deals with appointment of a Headmaster in L.P.School. W.A.No. 61 of 1999 deals with appointment of a Headmaster in an U.P.School and W.A.No. 383 of 2001 deals with appointment of a Headmaster in an L.P.School. In O.P.No. 12561 of 1998 (W.A. 383 of 2001), the learned Single Judge held that L.T.T.C. is not an equivalent qualification to T.T.C., T.C.H. or an equivalent training qualification for appointment as a primary assistant. Hence, in the absence of any approved training qualification a teacher with L.T.T.C. cannot be appointed as Headmaster in an L.P. School whereas, another learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in O.P. No. 17324/98 (W.A.No. 61 of 1999) held that L.T.T.C. is equivalent training qualification to B.Ed.and T.T.C. and, therefore, such persons are qualified to be appointed as Headmaster in U.P.School. 2. Before deciding the issue, we may quote the relevant rules. Rules 45 and 45 A of Chapter XIV (A) of KER which are as follows: "45. Subject to rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of complete U.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U.P. School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the School or Schools under the Educational Agency. 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 seniormost undergraduate teacher. 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 seniormost undergraduate teacher. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the School or Schools under the same Educational Agency, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore or a pass in Pre-degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant may be appointed. Note: The language/specialist teachers, according to their seniority in the combined seniority list of teachers, shall also be appointed as Headmaster of U.P. School or Schools under an Educational Agency provided the teacher possesses the prescribed qualification for promotion as Headmaster of U.P. school on the date of occurrence of vacancy. 45A. Subject to rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of a complete L.P.School is vacant or when an incomplete L.P. School becomes complete, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teacher on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. The person appointed as Headmaster shall have passed SSLC or equivalent Examination with T.T.C. issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Educational Examination Board, Banglore or pass in pre-degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. In the case of those who are continuing as teachers with Standard VII or its equivalent with H.E.T.T.C. or its equivalent training qualification, they shall have 12 years of continuous qualified service as Assistant for appointment as Headmasters of Lower Primary Schools. NOTE:- The Language/specialist teachers, according to their seniority in the combined seniority list of teachers shall also be appointed as Headmaster of L.P. School or Schools under an Educational Agency, provide the teacher possesses the prescribed qualifications for promotion as Headmaster of L.P.School on the date of occurrence of vacancy." 3. NOTE:- The Language/specialist teachers, according to their seniority in the combined seniority list of teachers shall also be appointed as Headmaster of L.P. School or Schools under an Educational Agency, provide the teacher possesses the prescribed qualifications for promotion as Headmaster of L.P.School on the date of occurrence of vacancy." 3. As far as U.P.S.A. is concerned a graduate teacher with B.Ed. is preferred for appointment provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher and if such a graduate teacher is not available, the seniormost primary school teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. or T.C.H. or Pre-Degree with Pedagogy as an elective subject or with equivalent training qualification can be considered for appointment. The Note clearly states that language or specialist teachers also can be considered if those teachers also possess the prescribed qualification for appointment of headmaster in L.P. School also. The minimum qualification is S.S.L.C. or T.T.C. or T.C.H. or equivalent training qualification. 4. Before going into the question, facts of the case also can be considered. In O.P.No. 17324/98 (subject-matter of W.A. No. 61 of 1999) petitioner/appellant joined the service on 3-6-1985. At the time of joining service, she was having B.A. and B.Ed. Therefore, she was a graduate teacher with B.Ed. qualification. A vacancy of headmistress aorse on 1-4-1996 on the retirement of the previous incumbent. Much before the date, she has also passed the obligatory test and she was fully eligible to be appointed as headmistress and manager appointed her as the headmistress by Ext.P1 which was approved by the AEO. Sixth respondent was a graduate in Hindi and passed L.T.T.C. and Account test and she was the seniormost teacher. If L.T.T.C. is considered as equivalent to B.Ed., she can also be considered as a graduate teacher with equivalent training qualification as that of B.Ed. and she has to be appointed. Even if L.T.T.C. is not considered as equivalent to B.Ed. Sixth respondent was a graduate in Hindi and passed L.T.T.C. and Account test and she was the seniormost teacher. If L.T.T.C. is considered as equivalent to B.Ed., she can also be considered as a graduate teacher with equivalent training qualification as that of B.Ed. and she has to be appointed. Even if L.T.T.C. is not considered as equivalent to B.Ed. but considered as equivalent to T.T.C. she had 25 years of full time service on 1-4-1996 and she had double the number of years of service than the petitioner and she can be appointed as headmistress as she has got S.S.L.C. and L.T.T.C. provided L.T.T.C. is treated as an equivalent qualification for T.T.C. of T.C.H. The learned Single Judge held that Chapter XXXI refers to training qualification of High School Assistants as B.Ed./ B.T./L.T. and Language Teachers' Training Certificate in Hindi has been equated to B.Ed./B.T./L.T. as Government has exempted the teachers who have passed L.T.T.C. before the academic year 1992-93 from acquiring B.Ed. qualification. Therefore, according to the learned Single Judge, L.T.T.C. is considered as equivalent to B.Ed. and Government have exempted those teachers who have passed L.T.T.C. from acquiring the B.Ed. qualification and, therefore, sixth respondent in O.P. No. 17324/98 is eligible to be promoted as headmistress whereas in O.p.No. 17324/98 is eligible to be promoted as headmistress whereas in O.P.No. 12561/98, another learned single Judge took the view that L.T.T.C. is never considered as equivalent to B.Ed. or T.T.C. and no separate order has been issued to that effect. According to the learned Single Judge rule 3(1) of Chapter XXXI of KER prescribes qualification for the post of U.P.S.A. as follows: "As pass in S.S.L.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent and T.T.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or a pass in Pre-degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or a pass in Basic T.T.C. examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Madras Government." All the post of U.P.S.As. can be filled up by persons with S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. or equivalent qualification, But, for appointment of language teachers L.T.T.C. can be considered; but, all the posts cannot be filled up with language teachers. Learned Judge also noticed as follows: "5. The petitioners does not possess any of these qualification except S.S.L.C. In other words, she does not have the training qualification prescribed. Learned Judge also noticed as follows: "5. The petitioners does not possess any of these qualification except S.S.L.C. In other words, she does not have the training qualification prescribed. But, Note to the Rule provides that possession of Malayalam Vidwan title is sufficient for appointment as U.P.S.A. But, all the post of U.P.S.As. cannot be filled up with those possessing Malayalam Vidwan title as per Clause (b) of the Note. But, at the same time, all the posts of U.P.S.As. can be filled up with T.T.C., T.C.H. or pedagogy holders. That itself is sufficient to indicate that the qualification of Malayalam Vidwan title does not include in any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for the appointment as primary school assistants as provided in Rule 45 Chapter XIV A, KER." 5. Now, the sole question to be considered is whether L.T.T.C. or Vidwan title can be considered as equivalent to B.Ed. or T.T.C. In both cases, sixth respondents were not having either B.Ed. or T.T.C. or T.C.H. or pre-degree with Pedagogy as an elective subject. If they are not qualified to be appointed as headmistress due to lack of prescribed training qualification, they are not entitled to be appointed as headmistress despite their seniority. This question was considered in detail by a learned Single Judge in Sethumadhavan v. Government of Kerala (2001 (2) KLT 461). There the learned single Judge held that merely because L.T.T.C. is considered as an alternative qualification for appointment as HSA, it cannot be taken as an equivalent qualification to graduation and B.Ed. which is an essential qualification for getting preference for appointment as headmaster under rule 45 of KER. It was also held that unless there are specific orders to the effect that L.T.T.C. is equivalent to B.Ed., it cannot be accepted as equivalent qualification and purpose of exemption or alternate qualification is different. The matter was again considered by the very same learned single Judge in Vijayamma v. St. Mary's UP School, Ampalakkara (2001 (2) KLT 469). The learned Judge held as follows: "3. R.2 of Chap XXXI does not say that a Language Teachers' Training in Hindi or any other language has been equated to B.Ed., B.T. and L.T. Graduation with B.Ed. is the qualification for appointment as H.S.A. (Language). Title of Vidwan with L.T.T. is an alternate qualification for that appointment. The learned Judge held as follows: "3. R.2 of Chap XXXI does not say that a Language Teachers' Training in Hindi or any other language has been equated to B.Ed., B.T. and L.T. Graduation with B.Ed. is the qualification for appointment as H.S.A. (Language). Title of Vidwan with L.T.T. is an alternate qualification for that appointment. That does not mean that title is equivalent to graduation or L.T.T. is equivalent to B.Ed. Those are only alternate qualifications. Chap.XXXI thus does not deal with any equivalence of L.T.T. with B.Ed., as I read. It is true that there is a Government Order exempting L.T.T.C. holders from acquiring B.Ed. in certain situations. An exemption from a qualification does not make one as possessing an equivalent qualification. Exemption is in special circumstances. Qualification is based on passing an examination and acquiring a qualification. Therefore, I cannot agree with the view taken in Ext. R6 (c) judgment.” 6. While deciding the same, the learned Single Judge considered and followed the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1831/2000 which was not reported at that time. The above decision was subsequently reported in Manager, AMUP School v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 155) - judgment by K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. wherein it was held as follows: "We notice that the academic qualification required for the post of HSA(Hindi) is a degree in Hindi conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala; or a title of Oriental learning in Hindi awarded or recognized by the Universities in Kerala; or Praveen of the Dakshina Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras with a pass in the SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent. The mere fact that the qualifications is made equivalent to the degree conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala, for the purpose of appointment to the post of HSA (Hindi) does not mean that qualification is equivalent to Graduation for the purpose of considering for appointment to the post of Headmaster. In other words, the qualification of Praveen of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras is equivalent only for the purpose of appointment to the post HSA(Hindi) and not for the post of Headmaster of a U.P. School. 5. In other words, the qualification of Praveen of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras is equivalent only for the purpose of appointment to the post HSA(Hindi) and not for the post of Headmaster of a U.P. School. 5. We may notice that the training qualification is B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala or Diploma or Certificate of Language Teacher's Training in Hindi issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. The mere fact that Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner for Government examinations, Kerala, is also considered as an alternative qualification, or equivalent qualification for the purpose of appointment to the post of HSA(Hindi), does not mean that Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training is equivalent to B.Ed./B.T./L.T. for the purpose of consideration to the post of Headmaster. The Division Bench further held that the Note in the Rule will not help the language teachers. The Division Bench held as follows: "Note only says that the language/specialist teacher shall also be appointed as Headmaster with a rider that they should have the prescribed qualification. Qualification is prescribed in R.45 which says that qualification is Graduation with B.Ed. or other equivalent qualification with at least 5 years experience in teaching after acquisition of B.Ed. degree. If a graduate teacher is available with those qualifications and that he has got service equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher, he should be preferred for appointment to the post of Headmaster, and not an undergraduate teacher. Only if a graduate teacher with the aforesaid qualifications is not available in the School, or in the Schools under the same Educational Agency, then alone the seniormost Primary School Teacher with SSLC or equivalent and TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Banglore would be considered. 7. We are therefore of the opinion that the qualifications possessed by the fifth respondent are not sufficient for being appointed to the post of Headmaster of a U.P.School. Qualifications are sufficient for appointing him as HSA (Hindi). We therefore find no infirmity in the in the order passed on 23-6-2000 by the Government holding that sixth respondent was the rightful claimant for appointment to the post of Headmaster. Qualifications are sufficient for appointing him as HSA (Hindi). We therefore find no infirmity in the in the order passed on 23-6-2000 by the Government holding that sixth respondent was the rightful claimant for appointment to the post of Headmaster. We therefore confirm the said order. We therefore confirm the said order. Consequently, W.A.Nos. 1831 and 1935 of 2000 would stand dismissed." 7. We fully agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench in 2001 (1) KLT 155 as well as the decision reported in 2001 (2) KLT 451 and 469 and hold that L.T.T.C. or Vidwan title is not equivalent to B.Ed. or T.T.C. or T.C.H. or pre-degree with Pedagogy or an equivalent qualification and, therefore, sixth respondent in both cases are not qualified to become headmistress. Neither the Government nor the Universities have recognized it as an equivalent qualification. This is further clear from Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI which deals with appointment of High School Assistants. Rule 2(1) and (2) (a) and (b) Chapter XXXI read as follows: "2. High Schools: (1) Headmaster: A degree in Arts or Science and B.Ed./B.T./L.T., conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. (2) High School Assistant: (a) High School Assistant(Subjects) A degree in the concerned subject and B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. (b) High School Assistant (Languages) (i) High School Assistant (Malayalam):- A Degree in Malayalam or Malayalam as one of the two optional Subjects under pattern II of part III and B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognized by the University in Kerala." Orient title or L.T.T.C. are treated only as an alternate qualification to become language teachers and not as an equivalent to become language teachers and not as an equivalent to B.Ed. 8. In O.P. No.17324/98, the vacancy arose with effect from 1-4-1996 and petitioner in that O.P.(appellant in W.A.No. 61 of 1999) and the sixth respondent were only contesting and sixth respondent was not qualified on that day as she was not having B.Ed. or T.T.C. or equivalent qualification. Hence, Ext.P1 appointment order issued to the petitioner as headmistress which is endorsed by the Assistant Educational Officer is perfectly valid and Ext.P2 is correct and therefore we uphold Exts. P1 and P2 and set aside Exts. P4 and P7. 9. or T.T.C. or equivalent qualification. Hence, Ext.P1 appointment order issued to the petitioner as headmistress which is endorsed by the Assistant Educational Officer is perfectly valid and Ext.P2 is correct and therefore we uphold Exts. P1 and P2 and set aside Exts. P4 and P7. 9. We also note that Government also have issued orders as early as on 24-4-1995 clarifying that L.T.T.C. cannot be equated to T.T.C. for promotion as Headmaster. Government letter No.27868/J1/93/G.Edn. dated 24-4-1995 is as follows: I am directed to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform you that the benefits as per the G.O.(MS) No. 522/Edn.dated 20-5-1988, G.O.(MS) No.81/70/G.Edn. dated 21-2-70 and G.O. (MS) No. 507/70/G.Edn. dated 10-12-70 may continue to be given for the continuance as teacher only, but it should not be given for the purpose of promotion as Headmaster for which the training qualification should be insisted as the qualification and method of appointment of Headmaster has been fixed as per G.O. (MS) No. 32/71/G.Edn. dated 19-3-1971 (for Government Schools) and rules 44A, 45A, 45B Chapter XIV A KER (for Aided Schools). I am also to clarify that L.T.T. cannot be equated to T.T.C. for promotion as Headmaster." 10. It is submitted that during the pendency of Writ Appeal sixth respondent retired from service on 31-3-1999 and seventh respondent was appointed in the place of headmistress by Annexure I order dated 31-3-1999 to C.M.P.No. 2343/99 after receipt of notice in the writ appeal. Sixth respondent itself was stated to be appointed as the headmistress before interim order in C.M.P. No. 30533/98 in O.P.No.17324/98 was issued on 9-9-1998 by Ext.R5 (a). In C.M.P.No. 2123/99 in W.A.No. 61/99, the following order was passed on 5-4-1999: "Heard counsel for the appellant and 6th respondent. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner was continuing as Headmistress during the pendency of the writ petition. However, that position has been disturbed by the reason of the judgment in the O.P. against which present appeal has been filed. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner was continuing as Headmistress during the pendency of the writ petition. However, that position has been disturbed by the reason of the judgment in the O.P. against which present appeal has been filed. Considering all the aspects, we allow the petitioner to continue as Headmistress of the school provisionally and subject to further orders to be passed in the W.A." Annexure A1 to C.M.P.No.2528/99 shows that appointment of seventh respondent is not approved by the A.E.O. In these circumstances, appointment of the petitioner/appellant in W.A.No. 61 of 1999 shall be approved from the date of vacancy, that is, on 1-4-1996 as per Ext.P1 order. She is entitled to get all the benefits of increments and service benefits as if she was headmistress from 1-4-1996. She should be reinstated as Headmistress forthwith if she is ousted already. The judgment in O.P.No.17324/98 is set aside and writ Appeal No.61 of 1999 is allowed. In view of the above findings, we fully agree with the learned single Judge in O.P.No.12561/98 and sixth respondent in that O.P. who was having only S.S.L.C. and L.T.T.C. is not entitled to be promoted as headmistress for want of required training qualification and we affirm the judgment in O.P.No.12561/98 and dismiss Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2001.