Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 637 (KER)

Manager SNDP LP. School v. K. V. Roy

2006-09-28

K.K.DENESAN, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2006
JUDGMENT K.K. Denesan, J. 1. The appellants assail the correctness of the judgment in WP (C) No. 25371/05. 2. The question for consideration is whether a Lower Primary School Assistant (L.P.S. A. for short) possessing B.Ed, degree but not TTC is qualified for the post of Headmaster of a Lower Primary School governed by the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as KER only). 3. The Manager of the school filed WA No. 2666 of 2005 and the affected teacher filed WA No. 39 of 2006. Appellants in WA. Nos. 525 and 526 of 2006 are not parties to the writ petition. They filed the writ appeals with the leave of the Court. 4. Facts, in brief, noticed below are with reference to the parties and documents as stated in WA No. 2666 of 2005. S.N.D.P. L.P. School, Valiyapadom is an aided lower primary school managed by the appellant. Respondents 1 to 5 and the appellants in WA Nos. 525 and 526 of 2006 are L. P. S.As. on the staff of that school. The 5th respondent in WP (C) No. 25371 of 2005 is a graduate with B.Ed. qualification. She is the seniormost L.P.S.A. in that school. The appellants in W.A. Nos. 525 and 526 of 2006 who support the case of the 5th respondent are also trained graduates but junior to the 5th respondent. Respondent No. 1 is the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 25371 of 2005. His qualifications are pass in SSLC examination with TTC as the training qualification. He is one of the juniormost L.P.S.As. of that school. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the school on 01/10/2003. The Manager appointed the 5th respondent as the Headmaster of the school. The Assistant Educational Officer approved that appointment. The 1st respondent (writ petitioner) was not test qualified as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. He preferred a claim for the post of Headmaster after acquiring the test qualification in June, 2005. In his petition filed before the Director of Public Instruction, it was contended that the 5th respondent was not qualified to hold the post of Headmaster of a lower primary school. The Additional Director of Public Instruction rejected the claim of the 1st respondent by Ext. P2 order, dated 27/05/2005 and upheld the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmaster. In his petition filed before the Director of Public Instruction, it was contended that the 5th respondent was not qualified to hold the post of Headmaster of a lower primary school. The Additional Director of Public Instruction rejected the claim of the 1st respondent by Ext. P2 order, dated 27/05/2005 and upheld the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmaster. Feeling aggrieved, the 1st respondent filed WP (C) No. 25371 of 2005 seeking to quash Ext. P2 and for consequential reliefs. Learned Single Judge (Pius Kuriakose, J.) allowed the writ petition and declared that the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) was entitled to be appointed as Headmaster of the school with effect from 01/04/2003. Contentions found favour with the learned Judge are the following: "The issue involved is covered squarely by the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in OP No. 9531 of 1997 and connected cases. The Division Bench delivered the judgment answering a reference as to whether B.Ed. is an equivalent training qualification for appointment for the post of Headmaster of a Lower Primary School under R.45 A of Chap.14 A of the KER. The reference became necessary since a Division Bench in Thulasibhai Amma v. Asst. Educational Officer ( 1993 (2) KLT 245 ) has taken the view that B.Ed. will also be an equivalent qualification for the post of Primary School Assistants. Answering the reference the Division Bench in OP No. 9531 of 1997 and connected cases has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. M. Latha v. State of Kerala ( 2003 (3) SCC 541 ) and has unhesitatingly held that B.Ed. is not an equivalent qualification for the post of Headmaster of L.P. Schools under R.45 A of Chap.14A." 5. The writ appeals came up for consideration before a Division Bench (M. Ramachandran and P. R. Raman, JJ.). is not an equivalent qualification for the post of Headmaster of L.P. Schools under R.45 A of Chap.14A." 5. The writ appeals came up for consideration before a Division Bench (M. Ramachandran and P. R. Raman, JJ.). The Division Bench noticed that the Judgment in Thulasibhai Amma (cited supra) had come up for consideration in WA No. 2554 of 2005 before another Division Bench (M. Ramachandran and A. K. Basheer, JJ.) and the learned Judges preferred to take the view that Thulasibhai Amma's case which had held the field for more than a decade cannot be given a go by notwithstanding the Judgment in OP No. 9531 of 1997 [see Gopalakrishnan v. Director of Public Instruction(1), because, it could not have been possible to contend that the teachers who were qualified all throughout, and were seniors, are not to be directed to vacate their position. 6. The apparent conflict as between the views of the two Division Benches of this Court led to the reference order necessitating the resolution of the controversy by a Full Bench. As rightly observed in the reference order, the issue is of vital importance as thousands of teachers are likely to be affected. 7. We have heard Shri N. N. Sugunapalan, learned senior counsel for the appellant in WA No. 2666 of 2005, Shri V. A. Muhammed, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 39 of 2006, Shri B. K. Purushothaman, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 525 of 2006, Shri A.M. Babu, learned counsel for the appellant in WA. No. 526 of 2006 and Smt. Vaheeda Babu, the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondents departmental authorities. 8. Of course, the discussion must focus on R.45 A of Chap.14 A but to understand the intention of the rule making authority an insight into the scheme of the statute with reference to other relevant provisions is also necessary. The question posed calls for a glance through the relevant statutory provisions spread over different chapters, viz., Chap.1, 2, 14A, 23, and 31 of KER and a deeper analysis of the rule position. 9. Broadly speaking, teachers who satisfy the following conditions are eligible for promotion as L.P. School Headmaster: (1) Seniority as reflected in the staff list of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. (2) Basic academic qualification of a pass in SSLC. or equivalent examination. 9. Broadly speaking, teachers who satisfy the following conditions are eligible for promotion as L.P. School Headmaster: (1) Seniority as reflected in the staff list of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. (2) Basic academic qualification of a pass in SSLC. or equivalent examination. (3) One of the training qualifications as prescribed in R.45A, and (4) Test qualification insisted under R.45B. 10. Having regard to the contentions urged before us, concentrating on the construction and the interpretation of R.45 A of Chap.14 A we have to examine the following points to answer the reference and decide these appeals, (i) The scope and meaning of the words "teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency", (ii) "other equivalent training qualification", and (iii) "training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary school Assistant", and (iv) whether the Judgment in Thulasibhai Amma v. Asst. Educational Officer ( 1993 (2) KLT 245 ) or that in Gopalakrishnan v. Director of Public Instruction ( 2005 (4) KLT 774 ) has laid down the correct law? 11. For the sake of convenience, we propose to deal with point Nos. (i) and (iii) together, before proceeding to the other points. 12. Educational institutions governed by KER are classified broadly as (i) Schools for General Education, (ii) Schools for Special Education, (iii) Schools for the Education of particular categories of students and (iv) Other institutions connected with the educational system of the State. (See R.1 of Chap.2, KER). Schools for General Education consists of two grades, i.e., (i) Primary; and (ii) Secondary. Subr.(2) of R.2 of Chap.2 says that the first seven standards i.e., Std. I to Std. VII shall be collectively known as the Primary Grade. Lower primary and upper primary are the two sections of the primary grade. 13. Teachers in primary grade are known under KER as Primary School Assistants. In the lower primary school or section they are designated as Lower Primary School Assistants and in the upper primary school or section they are designated as Upper Primary School Assistants. R.1 of Chap.23 prescribes the strength of teaching staff of lower primary schools. R.1(a) deals with schools working on shift system and R.1(b) deals with schools which do not work on shift system. R.1 of Chap.23 prescribes the strength of teaching staff of lower primary schools. R.1(a) deals with schools working on shift system and R.1(b) deals with schools which do not work on shift system. R.1(b) says that there shall be one post of Headmaster; and as many posts of Lower Primary School Assistants as thenumber of class divisions reduced by one. R.5 of Chap.23, KER says that in every Upper Primary School there may be one post of Headmaster; as many posts of Upper Primary School Assistants as the number of class divisions reduced by one; and as many posts of Lower Primary School Assistants as there are divisions in the Lower Primary School classes. There are upper primary schools with a lower primary section consisting of Stds. I to IV and upper primary section consisting of Stds. V to VII. Upper primary schools without a lower primary section consist of Standards V to VII only. 14. Appointment to the post of Headmaster of U. P. Schools and that of L.P. Schools is governed respectively by R.45 and 45A of Chap.14A, KER. Though we are concerned in these appeals with the appointment of L.P. School Headmaster, it will be useful to bear in mind the frame work and the language of R.45 also, as we proceed further. The above Rules, to the extent relevant, for the purpose of these appeals are extracted below: "45. Subject to R.44, when the post of Headmaster of complete U. P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U.P. School becomes a complete 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 senior most under graduate 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 senior most under graduate teacher. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the School or Schools under the same Educational Agency, the senior most 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, 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." "45A. Subject to R.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 teachers 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 TTC 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." 15. R.45B insists that a pass in Account Test (Lower) conducted by PSC shall be obligatory qualification for the post of Headmaster of L.P. Schools as also U.P. Schools. 16. Since R.45 and 45A are subject to R.44 of Chap.14A, the relevant portion from that rule is also extracted for easy reference: "44 (1) The appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared and maintained under clauses (a) and (b) as the case may be of R.34. The Manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the Rules laid down in the matter. The Manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the Rules laid down in the matter. A teacher if he is aggrieved by such appointment will have the right of appeal to the Department." The above rule makes it clear that teachers included in the seniority list prepared and maintained under R.34 provides the basic fabric to find out the eligible teacher for appointment as Headmaster. Hence, R.34 also assumes relevance. The said rule reads: "34. Every Management shall prepare and maintain in Form 11A a staff list otherwise called the seniority list of teachers as specified below: (a) In the case of High Schools, a combined seniority list of teachers specified in clauses (ii) and (iiA) of R.3, Chap.23 shall be prepared. (b) In the case of Upper Primary School and Lower Primary school a combined seniority list of teachers if any, specified in clauses (iii), (iv) and (V) of R.3, Chap.23 shall be prepared." 17. R.45A takes within its fold not only qualified teachers of one lower primary school but other schools also depending on the number of schools functioning under the same educational agency. Therefore, the teachers on the staff of one school or more schools than one, may come within the scope of the word "teachers" in R.45 A. There are educational agencies, each having only one school and several others having more than one. There are High Schools with upper primary and lower primary sections. Upper Primary Schools with or without lower primary sections and Lower Primary Schools, with no other sections attached to them. Ordinarily, the educational agency has to treat all the schools under it as a single unit, except when, for justifiable reasons, each school may be treated as separate units for the purpose of the staff list. For example, an educational agency having a girls' school and a boys' school, can treat each school as separate units. In the former case, the staff list will be a combined list consisting of the teachers of all those schools under that educational agency. If schools owned by the educational agency are treated as separate units, the teachers in that unit alone will be included in the staff list of that unit. Therefore, the word 'teachers' in R.45 A means the entire teachers included in the staff list, irrespective of the category or the nomenclature of the post. If schools owned by the educational agency are treated as separate units, the teachers in that unit alone will be included in the staff list of that unit. Therefore, the word 'teachers' in R.45 A means the entire teachers included in the staff list, irrespective of the category or the nomenclature of the post. This aspect becomes more clear on a combined reading of the provisions of R.34, 37, 44, 45 and 45 A of Chap.14A and R.3 of Chap.23, KER. The correlation between the aforesaid provisions is so conspicuous that any attempt to understand the true import of the words employed in R.45A, in isolation, is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. R.45A refers to R.44 and R.44 refers to R.34 of Chap.14A. R.34 mandates that every Management shall prepare and maintain in Form 11 A a staff list otherwise called the seniority list of teachers. 18. In view of R.34 (b) extracted earlier, the link between R.34, 44 and 45A is stretched to R. 3 of Chap.23 which deals with the designation of various teaching posts. R.3(iii) is Upper Primary School Assistant, R.3(iv) is Lower Primary School Assistant and R.3(v) is Language Teacher in Primary School / Section. Therefore a school having upper primary and lower primary sections will have a combined staff list, otherwise called the seniority list of U.P.S.As., L.P.S.As. and the Language Teachers of the school or schools treated as one unit under the same educational agency. In this context R.37 of Chap.14A has some relevance. The said rule reads: "37. (1) Seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit provided he is duly qualified for the post. (2) In the case of teachers in the same grade in the same unit whose date of commencement of continuous service is the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointment is also the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to age, the older being the senior." 19. The word "grade" in R.37(1) and (2) means scale of pay of the post. [See ILR 1979 (1) Ker. 355, 1977 KLT 434 and the Judgments in WA No. 318 of 1975 and WA No. 55 of 1978. The word "grade" in R.37(1) and (2) means scale of pay of the post. [See ILR 1979 (1) Ker. 355, 1977 KLT 434 and the Judgments in WA No. 318 of 1975 and WA No. 55 of 1978. Therefore, teachers in one unit under the same educational agency and having identical scales of pay are to be included in the same seniority list irrespective of the nomenclature of the post or other categorisation. Government orders issued from time to time revising the pay scales of the government and the aided school teachers show that the pay scales of primary school teachers, both upper primary and lower primary are identical. See GO (P) No. 600/93/Fin. dated 25/09/1993 which shows that the pay scale of Lower Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers was revised from Rs. 10001710 to Rs. 14002600. As per GO (P) No. 3000/98/Fin. dated 25/11/1998 also the pay scales of the teachers of Upper Primary and Lower Primary schools were the same. In the latest Pay Revision Order also the same position continues. R.1(1) of Chap.26 says that Teachers of Aided Lower Primary, Upper Primary, High and Training Schools shall be paid the scale of pay applicable to teachers of Government Lower Primary, Upper Primary, High and Training Schools. R.1(2) says that there shall be two scales of pay for teachers of aided primary schools, as in the case of teachers of Government Primary Schools. Hence the factual as well as rule position unmistakably shows that the Primary School Assistants in the aided private schools governed by KER can be included in one and the same staff list otherwise called the seniority list of the school or schools grouped together as one unit under the same educational agency. This being the position LPS As. and Language teachers included in the staff list of the school or schools are eligible to be appointed as the Headmaster of an Upper Primary School provided they possess the qualifications for that post. Likewise, UPSAs. and Language Teachers of U.P. Schools are eligible to be appointed as the Headmaster of the Lower Primary School, provided the lower primary and the upper primary schools, though functionally independent and separate, come under a single unit of the same educational agency. Therefore the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster of lower primary schools is not confined to LPS As. only. Therefore the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster of lower primary schools is not confined to LPS As. only. It is available to UPSAs. and Language Teachers also. 20. The language of R.45 as well as R.45A of Chap.14A, while maintaining the distinctive differences to suit the object and purpose of each rule has employed similar or identical words and expressions. R.45 deals with the qualification and the method of appointment to the post of Upper Primary School Headmaster. There the corresponding words used are 'Primary School Teacher'. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that the expression "Primary School Assistant" and "Primary School Teacher" shall be understood and read as Lower Primary School Assistant and Upper Primary School Assistant, as the case may be, so as to make it suitable to the context in which the said words are used in R.45A and R.45. To be precise, the contention is that the words 'Primary School Teacher' in R.45 mean Upper Primary School Assistant and the words 'Primary School Assistant' in R.45A mean Lower Primary School Assistant. 21. We don't accept the above contention. As already noticed, in a primary school having lower primary and upper primary sections, the seniormost qualified Primary School Teacher among L.P.S. As., U.P.S.As. and Language Teachers, will have the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster based on seniority in the combined staff list. Hence, a restricted meaning cannot be attributed to the words 'primary school teacher' in R.45 or 'Primary School Assistant' in R.45A of Chap.14 A. The intention of the rule making authority is clear from the plain language of the rule and it is not proper to supply the words 'lower' or 'upper' by a process of interpretation. R.45 which deals with the appointment of Headmasters of U.P. School also employs the words "the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the educational agency". In so far as the statute has employed the words "teachers on the staff of the School" it is neither proper nor reasonable to restrict the scope of that expression to U.P. school teachers only, ignoring the staff list prepared and maintained for L.P.S.As., U.P.S.As. and Language Teachers. In so far as the statute has employed the words "teachers on the staff of the School" it is neither proper nor reasonable to restrict the scope of that expression to U.P. school teachers only, ignoring the staff list prepared and maintained for L.P.S.As., U.P.S.As. and Language Teachers. Under R.45, the seniormost primary school teacher with SSLC and TTC or equivalent training qualification has got the right to be considered for appointment to the post of Headmaster of U.P School, in the absence of a graduate teacher with the requisite training and service qualifications. In an upper primary school having L.P. section also, the members of the teaching staff will consist of L.P.S.As. and U.P.S.As. The staff list or the seniority list shall be common to both. It is possible that one of the L.P.S.As. having SSLC and TTC may emerge as the seniormost primary school teacher in that school or the schools under that educational agency. In the absence of a graduate teacher with the requisite training and service qualification, the seniormost L.P.S. A. can stake a claim for the post of Headmaster of the U.P. School. This is so, for the reason that the term primary school teacher means L.P.S.As. and U.P.S.As. The term 'Primary School Assistant' in R.45 and R.45 A has to be understood applying the very same logic and rationale geared to the scheme of the statute. 22. Wherever necessary, the statute has used the nomenclature of the teaching posts distinctively as L.P.S.As., U.P.S.As., H.S.As. etc. Therefore, the use of the words "Primary School Assistants" without any prefix or qualifying words like "lower" or "upper" shows that the training qualifications prescribed for appointment as L.P.S.As. and U.P.S.As. are requisite qualifications. There is no justification to place a narrow interpretation on the words 'Primary School Assistant' in R.45 A. 23. In Gopalakrishnan's case (cited supra) the learned Judges of the Division Bench after saying that the statement refers to "any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant" proceeded on the assumption that the training qualification prescribed is that of Lower Primary School Assistant alone, though the rule does not employ the term "lower" before the words "Primary School Assistant". With great respect, we disagree with that part of the finding in Gopalakrishnan's case where it is stated that the "qualification prescribed for the post of Primary School Assistant is TTC and not B.Ed.". The above assumption appears to be the basis for the Division Bench to observe in Gopalakrishnan's case that "B.Ed. has never been recognised as an equivalent qualification for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant". 24. We hold that L. P. S.As. as also U. P. S.As. come within the purview of the words "qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the educational agency". Similarly the words "Primary School Assistant" in R.45 A mean L.P.S.As. as well as U.P.S.As. 25. Point No. 2: Possession of one of the following training qualifications is essential for a teacher to get promotion as Headmaster of lower primary school: (i) TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala, or (ii) T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore. (iii) A pass in Pre degree Examination with pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala and (iv) Any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. Dispute between the parties centres round the training qualification under item (iv) above. We have found that the term "Primary School Assistant" includes both Lower Primary and Upper Primary School Assistants. Hence, it will not be correct to say that teachers who possess the training qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of L. P. S. As. alone are qualified for promotion as the Headmaster of Lower Primary Schools. Teachers who possess the training qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of U.P.S.As. are also qualified for promotion to the post of Lower Primary School Headmaster. Any finding to the contrary will do violence to the language of R.45 A of Chap.14A and will amount to unreasonable restriction on the scope of the said rule. 26. It is pertinent to bear in mind that the feeder category of teachers for the post of Headmaster of Lower Primary Schools consists of L.P.S.As., U.P.S.As. and Language Teachers. The post of Headmaster is not only a teaching post but also an administrative post. It is for the efficient discharge of these administrative and supervisory functions that a pass in departmental test is made obligatory for those who seek promotion as Headmasters. and Language Teachers. The post of Headmaster is not only a teaching post but also an administrative post. It is for the efficient discharge of these administrative and supervisory functions that a pass in departmental test is made obligatory for those who seek promotion as Headmasters. This is evident from the duties and responsibilities assigned by the rules in KER to the Headmasters. The observation made by Chief Justice M. S. Menon, speaking for the Full Bench of this Court in Rt. Rev. Aldo Maria Patroni v. Kesavan( 1964 KLT 791 ) are worth noticing: "The post of the Headmaster is of pivotal importance in the file of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching." 27. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala ( 2003 (3) SCC 541 ) and Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. Chairman (2005 AIR SCW 4500), contended that the training qualification for appointment to the post of lower primary school teacher is TTC and not B.Ed. Therefore, the same training qualification alone shall satisfy the requirement of R.45 A. The above argument, in our opinion, overlooks the distinction between the qualifications prescribed for the post of L.P.S. A. and those for the post of Headmaster of the lower primary school. In Dilip Kumar Ghosh's case (supra) the Apex Court took note of the fact that 'the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal Rules, 1991' were framed primarily for recruitment of teachers for primary school and were designed to give an incentive to the teachers specifically trained to teach in primary schools and that "to accept a proposition that a candidate who holds a B.Ed. degree, i.e. higher degree cannot be deprived of appointment to the post of primary school teacher would negate the aims and objects of the rules for the purpose for which it is framed". degree, i.e. higher degree cannot be deprived of appointment to the post of primary school teacher would negate the aims and objects of the rules for the purpose for which it is framed". Having regard to the language of R.3(1) and 4(1) of Chap.31, KER as amended by GO (P) No. 188/2000/Edn., dated 08/06/2000 and the object and reasons of the said amendment there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that in the matter of appointment of Lower Primary School Assistants the requisite training qualification is TTC or T.C.H. or Pre degree with pedagogy and not B.Ed. In the case on hand we are not concerned with the validity or legality of the appointment of teachers as Lower Primary School Assistants. The question referred for our consideration is one relating to the scope and ambit of R.45 A of Chap.14A which deals with the appointment of Headmasters of lower primary schools. The decision of the Apex Court in P.M. Latha's case (supra) has laid down the dictum that B.Ed. qualification is not a higher qualification than TTC and that the B.Ed. candidates are not eligible to compete for appointment as teachers of lower primary schools. The factual matrix in Latha's case is entirely different. Put in a narrow compass the facts of that case are as follows: The State Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Primary School Teachers in the Education Department of the Government of Kerala. The qualifications notified by the Service Commission did not include B.Ed. or B.T. or L.T. But candidates who possessed B.Ed. asthe training qualification were selected by the Service Commission treating B.Ed. as a higher qualification. This was challenged by TTC holders. The Apex Court upheld the contention of TTC holders for two reasons: (i) the selection of B.Ed. holders without including B.Ed. in the notification of PSC is illegal and (ii) B.Ed. is not a higher qualification of TTC Private school teachers are appointed as per the provisions of the KER. The State Public Service Commission has no role to play under KER. The validity of the appointment of private school teachers including Headmasters will have to be tested in the light of the provisions in KER. is not a higher qualification of TTC Private school teachers are appointed as per the provisions of the KER. The State Public Service Commission has no role to play under KER. The validity of the appointment of private school teachers including Headmasters will have to be tested in the light of the provisions in KER. Our attention was specifically invited to the following observations in Latha's case which read: "We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible." 28. In view of the construction placed by us on the language of R.45A of Chap.14A, we hold that the training qualifications prescribed for the post of Upper Primary School Assistant shall also be considered as other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Headmaster. It therefore follows that the 5th respondent was duly qualified for appointment to the post of Headmaster in the vacancy that arose on 01/10/2003. The 1st respondent who was the juniormost teacher and not test qualified was ineligible to stake a claim for the post of Headmaster. 29. Point No. 4: The qualifications for the post of U.P.S.A. as per R.3(1) of Chap.31 of KER prior to its amendment as per GO (P) No. 188/2000/Edn. dated 08/06/2000 read as follows: "3(1) Upper Primary School Assistant. A pass in SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent and TTC 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 TTC Examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Madras Government." After the amendment, the said subrule of R.3 underwent certain changes. The amended subrule reads as follows: "3.(1) Upper Primary School Assistant. Or a pass in Basic TTC Examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Madras Government." After the amendment, the said subrule of R.3 underwent certain changes. The amended subrule reads as follows: "3.(1) Upper Primary School Assistant. A pass in SSLC examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent or a pass in Pre degree examination conducted by any of the Universities in Kerala or any examination recognised by any such Universities as equivalent to Pre degree examination or a pass in a Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Kerala or any other examination recognised by Government as equivalent there to and a pass in TTC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala; OR a degree in any subject and B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred by or recognised by the Universities in 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 TTC Examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Madras Government." Similarly, the qualifications for the post of L.P.S.A. as per R.4(1) of Chap.31, KER prior to the amendment as per GO (P) No. 188/2000/ Edn. dated 08/06/2000 were as follows: "4(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 TTC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or a pass in the Pre degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or a pass in Basic TTC Examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Madras Government." After its amendment, the above subrule reads: "4. (1) Lower Primary School Assistant. A pass in SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent or a pass in Pre degree Examination conducted by any of the Universities in Kerala or any examination recognised by any such Universities as equivalent to Pre degree Examination or a pass in a Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Kerala or any other examination recognised by Government as equivalent there to and a pass in TTC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. or a pass in the Pre degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala. or a pass in the Pre degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala. or a pass in Basic TTC Examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Madras Government "30. While R.3(1) and 4 (1) of Chap.31, KER were governing the field in their pre amended form, the rule making authority had to take note of the fact that the managements had been appointing persons with higher qualifications as Primary School Assistants in their U.P. and L.P. Schools and that Chap.31 of KER required an amendment to enable the Education Officers to approve the appointments of teachers having higher qualifications as Primary School Assistants. This led to the introduction of R.3A and 4A in Chap.31 vide amendment No. 4/74 as per Govt. Order dated 28/02/1974. The text of the amendment reads: "In the said Rules, in Chap.31, (1) After R.3, the following shall be inserted, as R.3A namely: 3A. Notwithstanding anything contained in subr.(1) of R.3, the District Educational Officer shall be competent to approve the appointments of candidates possessing higher qualification provided they have any of the training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala. (2) After R.4, the following shall be inserted as R.4A, namely: 4A. Notwithstanding anything contained in subr.(1) of R.4, the District Educational Officer shall be competent to approve appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala." 31. The scope and application of the above rules came up for consideration in Mathew v. State of Kerala ( 1992 (2) KLT 116 ). The question considered there was, whether a person with B.Ed. degree and T. T. C. can be appointed as L.P.S.A. or U.P.S.A. As per the unamended R.3(1) and 4(1) of Chap.31, KER appointment of B.Ed. degree holders without TTC was not approved. In Mathew' s case (supra) Sreedharan, J., as the Hon'ble Judge then was, took the view that R.3A and 4A would allow the educational officers to approve the appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications provided they have any of the training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala and that the training qualification approved by the Government of Kerala contemplated by R.3A and 4A can only be training qualifications other than TTC because the Government have nowhere stated that B.Ed. is not a higher training qualification than TTC nor have they got a case that B.Ed. is not a training qualification. is not a higher training qualification than TTC nor have they got a case that B.Ed. is not a training qualification. It was therefore held that under R.3 A and 4A of Chap.31 the educational authorities are to approve the appointments of B.Ed. degree holders as L.P.S.As. and U.P.S.As. While the law as declared in Mathew's case (supra) held the field, a dispute relating to the appointment to the post of Headmaster of a lower primary school under R.45A of Chap.14A came to be resolved by a Division Bench of this Court (M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. and K. Sreedharan, J.) in Thulasibhai Amma's case (supra). After taking note of the decision in Mathew's case, the Division Bench held that as per R.45A not only TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination is a requirement but also "any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary school assistant" and therefore even if the teacher does not have TTC it would be sufficient if he / she has any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary school assistant. 32. Following the law laid down in Mathew's case, B.Ed. degree holders were appointed by the aided school managers and their appointments were approved by the educational authorities. Appointments by promotion of teachers possessing B.Ed. degree as the training qualification were being made by the managers to the post of Headmaster of lower primary schools and those appointments were being approved by the departmental authorities under KER. This state of affairs continued for quite some time. This aspect has been well taken note of by the Division Bench that decided WA No. 2554 of 2005 observing that Thulasibhai Amma' s case which had held the field for more than a decade cannot be given a go by notwithstanding the judgment in Gopalakrishnan v. Director of Public Instruction ( 2005 (4) KLT 774 ). While the law laid down in Mathew's case and Thulasibhai Amma's case held the field, this Court had to take cognizance of a dispute between a R.51B claimant under the dying in harness scheme for appointment as L.P.S.A. in an aided school and the manager of that school on the ground that the claimant did not have the TTC qualification. While the law laid down in Mathew's case and Thulasibhai Amma's case held the field, this Court had to take cognizance of a dispute between a R.51B claimant under the dying in harness scheme for appointment as L.P.S.A. in an aided school and the manager of that school on the ground that the claimant did not have the TTC qualification. The above issue came up for consideration before Abdul Gafoor, J. who directed the parties to resolve the dispute by invoking R.64 of Chap.14A, KER and reserving the right of the teacher to raise contentions based on the amended R.4 of Chap.31, KER [See Jayanand v. A.E.O. ( 2001 (1) KLT 115 )]. Incidentally the learned Judge spoke on the scope and meaning of R.4A of Chap.31, KER vide paragraphs 3 and 4 of the above judgment. The said paragraphs are extracted below: "3. TTC is a course having a duration of two years. B.Ed. is a course having duration of one year. TTC is a course where the teachers are trained to teach all subjects to tiny tots, whereas B.Ed. is a course where the teachers are trained to teach one or two subjects alone for High School Classes. Therefore one cannot be compared with the other to hold that one is a lower qualification and the other is a higher qualification. 4. Admittedly B.Ed. is a training qualification. R.4A, Chap.31, KER reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in subr.(1) of R.4 the Educational Officer shall be competent to approve appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications provided they have any of the training qualifications approved bythe Government of Kerala. So that contention also cannot be accepted. Higher qualification made mention of in R.4 A is not in respect of a training qualification. It is in respect of academic qualification. The training qualification is dealt with in the proviso to that rule, which does not speak about a higher training qualification." 33. To some extent, the interpretation placed in Jayanand's case is in conflict with the view taken in Mathew's case (supra) affirmed by the Division Bench in Thulasibhai Amma's case. 34. It is in respect of academic qualification. The training qualification is dealt with in the proviso to that rule, which does not speak about a higher training qualification." 33. To some extent, the interpretation placed in Jayanand's case is in conflict with the view taken in Mathew's case (supra) affirmed by the Division Bench in Thulasibhai Amma's case. 34. It is pertinent to note that the question for consideration in Thulasibhai Amma's case was the legality of the order of appointment to the post of Headmaster under R.45 A of Chap.14A, KER and not that of L.P.S.A. or U.P.S.A. The learned Judges of the Division Bench incidentally referred to Mathew's case also which dealt with the approval of the appointment of B.Ed. holders as Lower Primary School Assistants. 35. A plain reading of R.3A and 4A of Chap.31 would show that the power conferred by the said Rules on the Educational Officers was to approve the appointments of those teachers who possessed higher qualifications subject to the condition that they must have any of the training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala. The words 'higher qualifications' in the context in which they are employed, mean academic qualifications. Ordinarily, higher academic qualifications can be acquired only after passing SSLC. Examination or its equivalent. TTC and B. Ed. are indubitably training qualifications. The training qualifications find mention in the proviso to R.3A and 4A. The proviso does not use the words 'higher training qualifications'. The view taken in Jayanand's case that B.Ed. is not a higher qualification of TTC finds approval in Latha's case and Dilip Kumar Ghosh's case decided by the Apex Court. At the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that the proviso speaks about the training qualifications 'approved by the Government of Kerala'. It was taking into consideration the above language of the proviso the learned Judge held in Mathew's case that "the training qualification approved by the Government of Kerala contemplated by R.3 A and 4A can only be training qualifications other than TTC" It is nobody's case that B.Ed. is not a training qualification approved by the Govt. of Kerala, notwithstanding the finding in Jayanand's, Latha's and Dilip Kumar's cases that B.Ed. is not a training qualification approved by the Govt. of Kerala, notwithstanding the finding in Jayanand's, Latha's and Dilip Kumar's cases that B.Ed. is not a higher training qualification when compared with TTC The position would have been different if in R.3 A and 4A the words "provided they have any of the prescribed training qualifications" were incorporated. We say so, because, in the explanatory note (which is not part of the rules or the amendment) what is seen stated as the general purport of the amendment is "to enable the approval of appointment of persons having higher basic qualifications as Primary School Assistants made by managements, provided they have the training qualifications prescribed". Since the language of R.3A and 4A is plain and does not give rise to any ambiguity, it is unnecessary to understand the meaning and the intention of the rule with reference to the explanatory note. We are of the view, the statement of law contained in Jayanand's case is correct to the extent the said decision holds that what is meant in the main part of R.3A and 4 A is a higher academic qualification and that B.Ed. is not a higher training qualification when compared with TTC At the same time we agree with the view taken in Mathew's case in so far as it has been held in that decision that the proviso to R.3A and 4A speaks about a training qualification approved by the Government of Kerala and viewed in that perceptive B.Ed. which is a training qualification falls within that category of approved qualifications. 36. The 5th respondent was appointed at a time when the law laid down in Mathew's case and Thulasibhai Amma's case held the field. Thousands of teachers possessing B.Ed. qualifications happened to be appointed by the school managers and almost all those appointments were approved by the educational officers applying the law laid down in the abovementioned judgments. Long thereafter, a different view is visible in Jayanand's case decided on 08/11/2000. By the time Jayanand's case was decided R.3 and 4 of Chap.31 had undergone changes in the light of the amendment of the said rules by GO (P) No. 188/2000/ Edn. dated 08/06/2000. Long thereafter, a different view is visible in Jayanand's case decided on 08/11/2000. By the time Jayanand's case was decided R.3 and 4 of Chap.31 had undergone changes in the light of the amendment of the said rules by GO (P) No. 188/2000/ Edn. dated 08/06/2000. One of the important changes introduced by the aforesaid amendment in R.3 is to prescribe B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred by or recognised by the Universities in Kerala as one of the training qualifications for the post of U.P.S.A. The above amendment is significant as far as R.4 of Chap.31 is concerned, because among the training qualifications prescribed for the post of L.P.S.A., training qualifications like B.Ed./B.T./L.T. are not prescribed, whereas in R.3 which also stands amended by the very same Govt. Order, B.Ed./B .T./L.T. have been newly introduced. This obviously shows that TTC is the training qualification intended to teach subjects suitable to tiny tots. The effect is that R.3A and 4A, though retained in the statute book pale into insignificance. 37. In paragraph 3 of the judgment in Thulasibhai Amma's case the learned Judges of the Division Bench held that a reading of the second part of R.45A would show that not only a TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination is a requirement, but also "any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant" and further that "even if the respondent writ petitioner does not have TTC, it will be sufficient if she hasany other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant". We agree with the above statement of law, because Primary School Assistant includes U.P.S.As. also and as such training qualifications prescribed for U.P.S.As. also come within the purview of R.45A, Chap.14A. Of course, the Division Bench did not make any attempt to analyse the scope and meaning of the words "Primary School Assistant" and did not also make any attempt to examine the relevance of the training qualification prescribed for the post of U.P.S.A., in that perspective. Now that such an analysis has been done by us while answering points 1 and 3 above and that analysis accords with the conclusion reached in Thulasibhai Amma's case, we uphold the statement of law in Thulasibhai Amma's case, though not entirely for reasons given in that judgment. 38. Now that such an analysis has been done by us while answering points 1 and 3 above and that analysis accords with the conclusion reached in Thulasibhai Amma's case, we uphold the statement of law in Thulasibhai Amma's case, though not entirely for reasons given in that judgment. 38. The Division Bench which decided Gopalakrishnan's case proceeded on the basis that Primary School Assistant means only Lower Primary School Assistant and took the view that B.Ed. is not a prescribed qualification for the post of Headmaster of Lower Primary School. In Gopalakrishnan's case the issue has not been decided with due emphasis on the language of the relevant rules, R.3, 3A, 4 and 4A of Chap.31 and R.34, 37 and 45 A of Chap.14A, in particular. We hold that the law laid down in Gopalakrishnan's case is not correct. Hence, our finding on Point No. 4 is that the view expressed in Thulasibhai Amma's case, vide paragraph 3 of that judgment, accords with the correct principle of law. Respondent No, 5 and similarly situated trained graduates have been continuously working for a decade and more as teachers in the Lower Primary School as qualified approved hands. It will be irrational to ignore their experience and service as qualified L.P.S.As. and deny such trained graduates promotion to the post of Headmasters on the sole ground that they are not TTC holders. 39. The reference is answered as above. 40. Before we part with this Judgment, it is only proper that we refer to a feeble contention taken by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the 5th respondent is not qualified for the post of L.P.S.A. The 1st respondent has not, however, challenged the appointment of the 5th respondent or the approval of that appointment. The above contention has been taken only for the purpose of raising objections against the appointment of the 5th respondent as the Headmaster under R.45 A. Since the appointment of the 5th respondent as L.P.S.A. was approved as a qualified hand following the law then in force and she has been continuing as a regular teacher, it is not open to the 1st respondent to question the right of the 5th respondent to continue in-service as a qualified approved teacher. The 1st respondent who commenced service on 04/07/2000 is far junior to the 5th respondent who has got continuous qualified service from 01/06/1993. The 1st respondent who commenced service on 04/07/2000 is far junior to the 5th respondent who has got continuous qualified service from 01/06/1993. As L.P.S.A., the 5th respondent has been teaching tiny tots for the last more than 10 years. Denying her promotion to the post of Headmaster on the ground that she is a trained graduate, and promoting instead, the juniormost L.P.S.A., the 1st respondent, would, not only be illegal but also against all canons of justice. 41. In the result, the judgment in WP (C) No. 25371 of 2005 is set aside. WP (C) No. 25371 of 2005 will stand dismissed. Ext. P2 is upheld and the writ appeals are allowed.