Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. Entitlement to the post of Headmistress of an aided High School is the dispute arising for consideration in these writ appeals by the same person. Both the contestant filed writ petitions. The appellant filed O.P.No. 12847/01, when she apprehended that the service that she had rendered while as a protected teacher would not be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion. Any how, when the vacancy arose on 1.4.02, the Manager appointed her as the Headmistress. This was objected to by the first responder in the Writ Appeal No. 1984/02, the other teacher, who claimed to be senior to the appellant. Her objection was considered by the District Educational Officer (DEO) and was over ruled as per Ext.P5. This was impugned in O.P.No. 13345/02 by her. Both these writ petitioners were heard together by a learned single Judge. He found that Ext.P5 was bad that the first respondent teacher was entitled to the post of Headmistress as against the appellant. The original petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed and that preferred by the first respondent teacher was allowed. Therefore, these two writ appeals by the petitioner in O.P.No.12837/01, who is also the contesting respondent in O.P.No.13345/02. 2. When, another Division Bench heard these writ appeals a question was posed as to whether service rendered by a teacher,- in this case the appellant-, while on protection, could be counted for the purpose of seniority. The Division Bench felt that the point was covered conflictingly in the judgment reported in Rahelamma vs. State of Kerala (1997(2) KLT 429) and in the judgment reported in Usha Devi v. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 615). Therefore the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench noticing another Full Bench decision reported in Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 998) found that the issue posed by the Division Bench for consideration by the Full Bench did not arise and therefore, sent back the appeal for consideration by the Division Bench. It is thus these appeals are before us. 3. As already mentioned, the issue involved is with regard to the counting of the service rendered by the appellant as a protected teacher for considering her to the post of headmistress in preference to the first respondent teacher. It is thus these appeals are before us. 3. As already mentioned, the issue involved is with regard to the counting of the service rendered by the appellant as a protected teacher for considering her to the post of headmistress in preference to the first respondent teacher. In order to consider this issue, the service details of the incumbents have to be born in mind. 4. The appellant initially entered service in Vivekodayam Sanskrit High School, an aided school covered by Kerala Education Rules (KER), on 11.12.1974. After a short spell of approved service, she faced retrenchment for want of vacancy. Thereafter she was appointed in the same school on 29-6-1976. She was appointed as a High School Assistant (Social Science). On the same day, the 1st respondent teacher was also appointed as H.S.A (Physical Science). Going by Rule 37(2) Chapter XIV-A KER, the appellant was senior, as it has to be fixed with reference to the date of first appointed, as their date of commencement of continuous service than was the same. 5. In the case of High School teachers, retrenchment due fall in vacancies consequent on fall in division shall be determined based on the requirement of the subjects to be taught in the High School and the number of the divisions of different standards sanctioned. It is an admitted fact that the appellant, though senior to the first respondent teacher, faced retrenchment on 4.1.85 from that aided school, consequent on fall in division and consequent fall in number of teachers. Accordingly, on such retrenchment, considering her long service, she was posted as a protected teacher in a Government school, on work arrangement. She continued there for more than 7 years until 13.11.92. Then alone a vacancy of HAS (Social Science) arose in her parent aided school namely Vivekodayam Sanskrit High School. Accordingly, she came back to that unit on 13.11.92. Thus both of them again came together in the same school with effect from 13.11.92. 6. It was while so a vacancy of Headmaster arise there on 1.4.02. The appellant apprehended that her service as a protected teacher for more than 7 years outside that school might not be counted for seniority and thereby she might be denied promotion as Headmistress. This Apprehension drove her to this court to file O.P.No.12847/01 leading to W.As.No.1985/02. 6. It was while so a vacancy of Headmaster arise there on 1.4.02. The appellant apprehended that her service as a protected teacher for more than 7 years outside that school might not be counted for seniority and thereby she might be denied promotion as Headmistress. This Apprehension drove her to this court to file O.P.No.12847/01 leading to W.As.No.1985/02. Any, how, during its pendency she was promoted and it was approved by the DEO as per Ext.P.5 marked in O.P.No.13345/02 leading to W.A.No.1984/02. The DEO considered that, in between them, the appellant was senior, having an earlier approved service than that of the first respondent teacher. This was challenged by the first respondent teacher in that Original Petition. The learned single Judge considering various decisions found that a teacher retrenched from an aided school and posted as a protected teacher in another school cannot count her service rendered, while on such posting, for the purpose of seniority in her parent school. Therefore, she could not be considered as senior to the first respondent teacher. This is impugned in these Writ Appeals. 7. Qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster of an Aided High School is an contained in Rule 44A of Chapter XIV-A KER, which reads as follows; (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sub-rule(1) of the rule 44, the minimum service qualification for appointment as Headmaster in Aided complete High Schools/Training schools shall be twelve years of continuous graduate service (with a pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules) and a pass in account Test (Lower) conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission). 8. Therefore an incumbent to be qualified for appointment as Headmaster should have a minimum of 12 years continuous graduate service as a qualification. Going by the service details as mentioned above, on the date of occurrence of vacancy of Headmaster both the claimants had that service qualification. This is not disputed. 9. Rule 44A further provides that appointment of such qualified hands shall be ‘subject to Rule 44 (1)’, which reads as under. “(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 rule 34). The manager will appoint the Headmaster subject to the Rules laid down in the matter. “(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 rule 34). 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”. 10. Thus, among the qualified hands, seniority shall have to be considered as the criterion for preference. A full Bench of this court in the decision reported in Sasidharan Nair V. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 998 held as follows:) “Firstly, it deserves notice that seniority determined under R.37 does not make the person eligible for promotion. It only embodies the order in which the names are to be considered. While considering the names, the Manager can promote only such person who fulfils the qualification.” 11. Thus when both the contestants fulfill the qualification, necessarily going by Rule 44(1), which according to the Full Bench “embodies the order in which the names are to be considered” the senior hand shall be preferred. This is beyond doubt. Who is the senior?- it is the question to be answered. 12. Seniority among the teacher in an aided school is to be determined by Rule 37(1) Chapter XIV-A KER, which reads as under; “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 that post”. (emphasis supplied). 13. This rule reveals that seniority is not with reference to a particular date of commencement of service; but with reference to the length of continuous service in a particular unit. The date of commencement is relevant only in terms of sub rule (2) of Rule 37 to determine the inter se seniority of two or more teachers who commenced the continuous service in the same unit on the same date, in which case the person who commenced service first, though not continuous, will be the senior. In this case, as on 29.6.1976, the 1st date when both together commenced service in the Vivekodayam Sanskrit High School, the appellant was senior in that school, because she had an earlier approved service to be reckoned in terms of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 37. 14. In this case, as on 29.6.1976, the 1st date when both together commenced service in the Vivekodayam Sanskrit High School, the appellant was senior in that school, because she had an earlier approved service to be reckoned in terms of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 37. 14. But when the post of HAS (Social Science) was reduced on account of division fall in the year 1985, she had to be retrenched from that school on 4.1.1985 and had to work as a protected teacher consequent on such retrenchment in a Government School, a different unit, during the period from 4.1.1985 to 13.11.1992. This is an admitted fact. It was thereafter, on 13.11.92, she was re-appointed in her parent unit namely Vivekodayam Sanskrit High School. In such circumstances, as on 1.4.02, when the vacancy of Headmistress arose, the length of continuous service in the grade of High School Assistant in Vivekodayam Sanskrit High School, in between first respondent teacher and the appellant, is from 29.6.76 in the case of first respondent teacher and from 13.11.92 in the case of appellant, because the service that the appellant did have from 29.6.76 in the unit namely Vivekodayam Sanskrit High School until 3.1.85 is not continuous, but with a long break from 4.1.85 to 13.11.92. Consequently, as the length of continuous service in the cadre of High School Assistant in that unit is the criterion. For the purpose of fixation of seniority, in terms of Rule 37(1), necessarily, going by the service details of the respective incumbents, it has to be held that the first respondent teacher did have lengthier continuous service than the appellant in that unit to hold that the first respondent teacher is senior to the appellant. Therefore, the decision of the learned single Judge cannot be said to be faulty to invite interference. 15. It is true that, the full Bench in Sasidharan Nair’s case has made it clear that the service of a teacher transferred from one school to another will not be lost in the matter of eligibility for appointment as Headmaster of the latter school. But that was considering the requirement of the service qualification as provided in Rule 44A of Chapter IX-A KER; and not as respects seniority. Therefore, that proposition cannot be read into in the matter of determining seniority. But that was considering the requirement of the service qualification as provided in Rule 44A of Chapter IX-A KER; and not as respects seniority. Therefore, that proposition cannot be read into in the matter of determining seniority. Whether one is qualified with the required services prescribed as qualification and whether one incumbent is senior to the other are two different aspects altogether. The former comes within rule 44A and the latter in Rule 37(1) Chapter XIV-A KER. These are two independent applications of two different provisions. 16. No seniority list as currently drawn up with respect to the year which preceded the occurrence of vacancy of the Headmaster, placing the appellant as senior also is not brought to our notice to old that she has been regarded as senior to the 1st respondent teacher to be preferred for such promotion. Therefore both the writ appeals fail. Writ Appeals are dismissed.