COURTS ORDER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. :- A conflict in the views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court was noticed by one of us and hence, a reference made to the Honourable the Chief Justice with a request to refer the matter to a Bench comprising of more than two Judges. This Full Bench is constituted pursuant to the said reference. We formulate the point of reference as herein low:- " For promotion to the post of Head Master of a Primary School, whether seniority of the teacher is to be counted from the date of initial appointment, or from the date of acquisition of educational and training qualification ?" 2. In a judgment reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 438 in case of Chintaman maji Mahakalkar vs. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Wardha others, the Division Bench held that the seniority of primary school teachers has to be determined on the basis of date of joining service and continuous lciation irrespective of the date of acquiring D.Ed. qualification, whereas a contrary view is expressed in another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 206, in case of Rajhans Narayanrao Shahapure and others vs. Prabhavati Vithalrao Kamble and others. The Division Bench in Rajhans’s case has held that there is no doubt that for the purpose of seniority, initial date of appointment is required to be considered but for teachers who fulfil the required qualifications for such appointment, the learned Judges counted the seniority of primary school teacher from the date of acquisition of B.Ed. qualification. 3. Few facts that are necessary to consider the rival contentions are set out rein below: The petitioner is in the employment of respondent No.l/Society and is working as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school having Standards from I to. The respondent No.1 promoted the respondent No.2 to the post of Head master and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, contending that the promotion granted to the respondent No.2 being in supersession of the claim of the petitioner, the same be quashed, it being illegal. Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that the seniority need to be counted from the date of acquiring training qualification. The respondent No.2 before the Tribunal is the petitioner before this Court and he has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that the seniority need to be counted from the date of acquiring training qualification. The respondent No.2 before the Tribunal is the petitioner before this Court and he has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners date of initial appointment as a primary school teacher is -3-1972 at which point of time, he had the qualification of S.S.C. The petitioner proved his qualification while in service by passing Diploma in Education .Ed.) examination in the year 1981, whereas the respondent No.2 was initially appointed on 1-7-1973 and at the time of his appointment, he was possessing qualification of S.S.C. The respondent No. 2 acquired the qualification Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) in the year 1980 i.e. prior to the petitioner seniority is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, and officiation from the said date is to be taken to be the criteria to seniority, the present petitioner will be senior. However, if the seniority is to be counted from the date of acquiring the requisite qualification (D present case), the respondent No.2 will be senior. In the above factual matrix, we proceed to consider the issue. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has con Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (C Service) Rules, 1981 (For short, "M.E.P.S. Rules") mandates the every school to prepare and maintain seniority list of the teaching accordance with the guidelines laid down in Schedule "F". Inviting to Schedule "F", it is submitted that Clause 1 which deals with guidelines fixation of seniority of teachers in the primary schools provide that of primary school teachers shall be based on the date of joining, continuous officiation. It is submitted by Mr. N. B. Khandare, learn appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that Rule 12 read with Schedule with fixation of seniority and it does not speak of the training qualification he submits that the training qualification cannot be read either in. Schedule "F" of the M.E.P.S. Rules. Per contra, Mr. S. B. Bhapkar, learned Counsel appearing . respondent No.2, submits that in the very scheme of the Maharashtra. of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 "M.E.P.S. Act") and the Rules framed thereunder, untrained teachet appointed at all and the seniority has to be from amongst the trail only. Schedule "F" of the M.E.P.S. Rules. Per contra, Mr. S. B. Bhapkar, learned Counsel appearing . respondent No.2, submits that in the very scheme of the Maharashtra. of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 "M.E.P.S. Act") and the Rules framed thereunder, untrained teachet appointed at all and the seniority has to be from amongst the trail only. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 places reliance definition of "trained teacher" in Rule 2( l)(k) which reads thus :- " "Trained teacher" means a teacher who has secured a certificate, a diploma or a degree recognised by the Department qualifies him for a teaching post in a school." It is submitted that an untrained teacher is not qualified and is to be appointed as a primary school teacher. Hence, service rendered primary school teacher without training qualification cannot be seniority, as such an appointment is no appointment in the eye of law. 5. Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act provides for certain obligations managements of private schools and section 5(1) reads thus :- "The Management shall, as soon as possible, fill in, in prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private such appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy."; (Emphasis supplied) Sub-section 5 of section 5 permits the Management to fill temporary vacancy by appointing a person duly qualified to fill such What is to be seen is that section 5 obliges the Management to permanent vacancy, so also, the temporary vacancy by appointing a qualified. Rule 6 of the M.E.P.S. Rules lays down the qualifications of teachers, the relevant portion of which reads thus: "The minimum qualifications for the posts of teachers and the non-teaching staff in the primary schools, secondary schools, Junior colleges and Junior Colleges of Education shall be as specified in Schedule "B"." A plain reading of Rule 6 makes it amply clear, that the minimum qualification the post of teachers in primary and secondary school shall be as specified in schedule "B". Turning to Schedule "B", it can be noticed that minimum qualifications for primary teachers are stipulated in clause "I". Turning to Schedule "B", it can be noticed that minimum qualifications for primary teachers are stipulated in clause "I". The relevant portion thereof lays down thus :- "Appointment to the posts of Primary school teachers (other than special teachers - Drawing teachers) shall be made by nomination from amongst candidates who have passed S.S.C. examination or Matriculation examination or Lokshala examination or any other examination recognised as such by Government and the Primary Teachers Certificate examination or Diploma in Education examination, or a Diploma in Education (pre-primary of two years duration)." (Emphasis supplied) For appointment to the post of primary school teacher, Schedule "B" provides at the person to be appointed need to possess qualifications of S.S.C. (or any examination equivalent thereto) and the training qualification which is described. Unless and until a person possesses the qualifications of S.S.C. and Diploma in Education or teaching, as laid down in clause "I" of Schedule "B", he cannot be treated as a person duly qualified, which is the requirement of section 5(1) and section 5(5) of the M.E.P.S. Act. Sub-Clause 2 of Clause "I" of scheduled "B" of the M.E.P.S. Rules deals with appointment of Special teachers, whereas Sub-Clause 3 exempts primary school teachers whose date of first appointment is prior to 15th October, 1966 from acquiring the necessary qualification. It is not the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner satisfies the teria in clause 3 and hence, falls within the exception. Reading of Rule 6 and 7,schedule "B", in the light of section 5, which speaks of appointment of duly qualified teachers, the conclusion is inescapable that only a trained teacher is eligible and qualified for being appointed as a primary school teacher and if this so, it is not possible to conceive that service rendered by a teacher in a primary school who does not have the requisite qualification as laid down in Schedule "B" can be counted for the purpose of seniority. No doubt, the criteria "seniority based on the date of joining service and continuous officiation" but cannot be lost sight of the fact that Schedule "F", so also, Rule 12 pre-supposes appointment of a trained primary school teacher in conformity with the eligibility d qualification prescribed in Schedule "B". No doubt, the criteria "seniority based on the date of joining service and continuous officiation" but cannot be lost sight of the fact that Schedule "F", so also, Rule 12 pre-supposes appointment of a trained primary school teacher in conformity with the eligibility d qualification prescribed in Schedule "B". Rule 12 and Schedule "F" cannot read in isolation without considering the mandatory provision contained in section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act, so also, Rule 6 and Scheduled "B" of the M.E.P.S. les. 6. Keeping the above relevant provisions in mind, we turn to Rule 3(1) of M.E.P.S. Rules which regulate the appointment of "Head". It reads thus: "Qualifications and appointment of Head. - (1) A person to be appointed as the Head - (a)(i) of a primary school having an enrolment of students above 2 having Standards I to VII shall be the seniormost trained teacher has put in not less than five years service; and (ii) of any other primary school shall be the seniormost teacher in the school. (b) " (Emphasis supplied) In the case in hand, the situation is squarely covered by Rule 3(l)(a)(i) school has Standards from I to VII. The rule clearly provides that the person appointed as "Head" shall be the seniormost trained teacher who has put less than 5 years of service. Thus, Rule 3(l)(a)(i) does not leave any for ambiguity. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submission Rule 3(l)(a)(ii) does not prescribe, that a person to be appointed as Head other primary school shall be the seniormost trained teacher but on the co it prescribes the criteria of "seniormost teacher". Taking support for commission of the word "trained" in Rule 3(l)(a)(ii), it is submitted that t does not postulate appointment of a seniormost trained teacher as a He permits appointment of the seniormost teacher and if this be so, then it ca claimed that the training qualification is a sine qua non for appointment primary school teachers and hence, seniority should be reckoned having regard the initial date of appointment and continuous officiation . Though in the first blush, the submission appears to be impression closure scrutiny, the same does not hold good. Rule 3, which is a provision subordinate piece of legislation, will have to be interpreted in consonance other provisions contained in the Rules and such construction need harmony with the parent statute. Though in the first blush, the submission appears to be impression closure scrutiny, the same does not hold good. Rule 3, which is a provision subordinate piece of legislation, will have to be interpreted in consonance other provisions contained in the Rules and such construction need harmony with the parent statute. Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act in no terms direct that the Management shall fill in the permanent vacant temporary vacancy by appointment of a person duly qualified. Rule crucial rule laying down qualifications of teachers and it provide minimum qualifications for the post of teachers shall be as specified is "B". Clause "I" of Schedule "B", which deals with qualifications school teachers, specifically prescribe qualification of S.S.C.and D . other equivalent diploma mentioned therein). The definition of "train in Rule 2( 1 )(k) refers to a teacher who has secured professional c diploma or degree recognized by the Department which qualifies teaching post. All the provisions, if read in harmony, the clear pos emerges is that no person can be appointed as primary school teacher having qualification as prescribed under Schedule "B", meaning possessing minimum educational and training qualification. 8. We may draw support for the above mentioned proposition judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Shitala Prasad Shukla vs P. and others others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1859 . The appellant was working as a Lecturer in Hindi in a college, did not have qualifications and was, therefore, not entitled to be appointed in lecture grade as lecturer (Hindi) having regard to the prohibition contained in of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The appellant in the reported judgment made an application for exemption as envisaged by section 16-E of the Act. The application was considered and granted by the Board of High School and intermediate Education, D.P., by its order dated July 23, 1963. The contention of appellant therein was that though the Board had actually granted exemption on July 23, 1963, he must be deemed to have been exempted from December 4, 1960, it being the date on which he applied for exemption and as his seniority is liable to be counted from November 4, 1960, itself. The contention of appellant therein was that though the Board had actually granted exemption on July 23, 1963, he must be deemed to have been exempted from December 4, 1960, it being the date on which he applied for exemption and as his seniority is liable to be counted from November 4, 1960, itself. While ling with these contentions and negativing the arguments advanced by the appellant, the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment, thus: "There is also one more dimension of the matter. Though the appellant was working as a lecturer, it was not under any authority of law for there is no provision which empowers the college to allow any unqualified person to teach or to appoint him as such in anticipation of his disqualification being removed in future. Till the exemption was granted appellant was not even a teacher in the eye of law though he was allowed to teach by the indulgence of the college authorities. The disqualification was removed only on July 23, 1963 when the Board granted the exemption. How could he have claimed seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 5 and 6 who possessed the requisite qualifications and became regularly and lawfully appointed teachers much prior thereto ? An employee must belong to the same stream before he can claim seniority vis-a-vis others. One who belongs to the stream of lawfully and regularly appointed employees does not have to contend with those who never belonged to that stream, they having been appointed in an irregular manner. Those who have been irregularly appointed belong to a different stream, and cannot claim seniority vis-a-vis those who have been regularly and properly appointed, till their appointments became regular or are regularized by the appointing authority as a result of which their stream joins the regular stream. At that point of confluence with the regular stream, from the point of time they join the stream by virtue of the regularization, they can claim seniority vis-a-vis those who join the same stream later. The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue." 9. In this view of the matter, we hold that for a valid appointment of a contrary school teacher, a person must possess educational so also the training/teaching qualification. No person can be legally appointed who does not training qualification. The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue." 9. In this view of the matter, we hold that for a valid appointment of a contrary school teacher, a person must possess educational so also the training/teaching qualification. No person can be legally appointed who does not training qualification. Hence, service rendered as an untrained teacher will qualify for being counted to determine seniority. 10. Having recorded a finding that for appointment of a primary school her, the requisite eligibility criteria is possessing educational and training/teaching qualification, we are faced with a direct conflict in the language in Sub-Rule 3(l)(a)(i) and 3(l)(a)(ii). Rule 3(l)(a)(i) categorically provides for appointment to the post of Head of a primary school having an enrolment students about 200 or having standards I to VII, shall be the seniormost trained her who has put in not less than 5 years service, whereas Rule 3(l)(a)(ii) lays down that a person to be appointed as a Head of any other primary school be the seniormost teacher in the school. A plain reading of Sub-Rule (a)(ii an impression that not only the requirement of not less than 5 years ser dispensed with, but also it dispenses with the requirement of qualification. The omission of the word "trained" occurring after the "seniormost" and before the word "teacher" gives rise to an absurdity, in as for appointment of a teacher training qualification is pre-requisite and 3(1)(a)(ii) is literally construed, the same does not postulate that for approach of a Head, the teacher should be a trained teacher. This anomaly has resolved by interpretative process. It is a settled position in law, that a statute must be read as a whole provision of the Act should be construed with reference to the other provision the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole senior construction which avoid inconsistency or repugnancy either within the between the rule and other parts of the statute has to be preferred. It is in on courts to avoid" a head on clash" between the provisions of the rule. The rules need to be harmonized in furtherance of the object of the stat provision cannot be read so as to defeat those of another. Rules are enquiry read as part of an integral whole as being interdependent. It is in on courts to avoid" a head on clash" between the provisions of the rule. The rules need to be harmonized in furtherance of the object of the stat provision cannot be read so as to defeat those of another. Rules are enquiry read as part of an integral whole as being interdependent. Any interpretation which results in repugnancy or absurdity will have to be avoided maintaining the unity of the statutory scheme, it is imperative to determine hierarchy of the provisions so as to give effect to the purpose sought achieved by the statute. With a risk of repetition, it is reiterated that mandates the management to fill in the vacancy, be it permanent or temporary by appointing a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy. Rule 6 lays minimum qualifications for the post of teachers shall be as specified in "B" and Schedule "B" in turn provides for minimum qualification appointment to the post of primary school teachers and further pres qualification of S.S.C. and D.Ed. or any other qualification equivalent same, as laid down in Clause 1 of Schedule "B". If Rule 3(1)(a)(i) and in the light of provisions of Rule 6 and Schedule "B", it is obvious 3(1)(a)(ii) only intended to relax the requirement of an experience 0 than 5 years service which is specifically provided for in Rule 3(1)(a scheme of the Act, one cannot comprehend that the legislature had interim away with the requirement of the seniormost teacher being a trained could not have been the intention of the legislature while framing Rule to deliberately omit the word "trained". The omission of the word "trained obvious drafting error and if the said word is not supplemented, the be harmonized in tune with the scheme of the Act and the other rules referred to herein above. 11. We are alive to the legal position, that only in an exception the courts can supplement a word, as the same would almost tan legislative exercise but unless and until we resort to the exception, the no harmony in the scheme of the Act and the rules and what would surface would be nothing less than repugnancy and absurdity. 11. We are alive to the legal position, that only in an exception the courts can supplement a word, as the same would almost tan legislative exercise but unless and until we resort to the exception, the no harmony in the scheme of the Act and the rules and what would surface would be nothing less than repugnancy and absurdity. Faced with this difficulty proceed to rely upon a rule of construction enunciated by Denning, has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court in some of its judgments, Deanning, L. J., said in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. vs. Asher, (1994)2 All England Reporter 155, at page 164 : " When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament and then he must supplement the written words so as to give force and life to the intention of the Legislature. A judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this struck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases." The Apex Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548 , approved the rule of construction. stated by Denning, L.J., while dealing with the definition of "Industry" in the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His Lordship, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., who delivered leading majority judgment in that case, referred with approval the passage extracted above from the judgment of Denning, L.J., in case of Seaford Court Estates Asher Ltd. vs. Asher. stated by Denning, L.J., while dealing with the definition of "Industry" in the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His Lordship, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., who delivered leading majority judgment in that case, referred with approval the passage extracted above from the judgment of Denning, L.J., in case of Seaford Court Estates Asher Ltd. vs. Asher. Denning, L.J. has re-stated the above referred rule new form in a subsequent judgment by making following observations: " We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis." What follows from the above discussion is that if there is a prima facie gap an obvious omission in the statute/rule, the Judge should ask a question to self, that if the makers of the Rule had themselves come across this struck in texture of it, would they have straightened it out, and if the answer is in the affirmative, he must then do so as they would have done, of course, without ring the material of which the Act is woven of. 12. To us, it does appear that had the attention of the rule makers been between to Rule 3(l)(a)(i) and (ii) and more particularly, in regard to the absence of the word "trained" in Rule 3(l)(a)(ii), they would have filled in the omission inserting the word "trained" in Rule 3(l)(a)(ii). As we are convinced that absence of word "trained" in Rule 3(l)(a)(ii) is an unintended accidental omission, the same has to be supplemented by having recourse to the rule of construction, as stated by Denning, L.J., which has been approved by the majority judgment of the Apex Court viz. seven Judges judgment rendered in galore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and others (supra). Failure to have recourse to the same, would result in destroying the whole fabric of the scheme laid down by the Act and the other provisions of the Rules. In this of the matter, we deem it appropriate to read the word "trained" in Rule )(a)(ii) after the word "seniormost" and before the word "teacher" so that a harmonious construction of the Act and the other provisions of the Rules is visible. In this of the matter, we deem it appropriate to read the word "trained" in Rule )(a)(ii) after the word "seniormost" and before the word "teacher" so that a harmonious construction of the Act and the other provisions of the Rules is visible. Accordingly, we supplement the word "trained" in Rule 3(l)(a)(ii) and answer the reference herein below thus: For appointment to the post of Head Master (by promotion) of a primary 01, the seniority of the teacher is to be counted from the date he acquires vocational and training qualifications as prescribed under Schedule "B" of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The seniority cannot be counted appointment and continuous officiation devoid of prescribed in Schedule "B". 13. Having answered the reference, we direct the Registry to place Petition before the appropriate Bench for disposal. Reference answered accordingly