Jagannadha Rao, CJ. - (1.)THIS appeal is preferred by the third respondent in the writ Petition. The le armed Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that the writ petitioner is qualified to be appointed as Headmistress in preference to the appellant herein (third respondent in the Writ Petition ). The fact remains that the petitioner in the Writ Petition is not only a graduate, but also holds B. Ed, degree and also she has passed Account Test (Lower)Examination. Her appointment as LPS A has been approved long back. In so far as the appellant is concerned, she is a SSLC with TTC, but has not passed Account test (Lower ).
(2.)IT is not in dispute before us that the appellant, who was, the third respondent in the Writ Petition, was not qualified to be appointed as Headmistress of the School. The contention that is now raised is that the respondent-writ petitioner also is not qualified, and therefore as between them, the appellant who was having longer service, should have been appointed in-charge basis. In other words, it is the case of the appellant that the post should be filled up by in-charge arrangement on the basis that the respondent-writ petitioner was not qualified, whatever may be the ineligibility of the appellant. The question of ineligibility of the appellant not being in dispute the only other point to be gone into is as to whether the respondent-writ petitioner was or was not qualified to be appointed as headmistress under Rule 45a of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. That Rule reads as follows: "r. 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 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 TCH 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 assist- ant. In the case of those who are continuing as teachers with standard vii or its equivalent with HETTC or its equivalent training qualification they shall have 12 years of continuous qualified service as Assistant for appointment of Headmasters of Lower Primary Schools". IT will be noticed that in so far as the respondent-writ petitioner is concerned, she is a graduate and holds B. Ed. degree and has passed Account Test (Lower ). What is now contended by the appellant before us is that the respondent-writ petitioner is not having TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination, for that is required under Rule 45a of Chapter XIV-A of the K. E. R
In our view, the above said contention cannot be accepted. A reading of the second part of Rule 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". It is therefore clear that even if the respondent-writ petitioner does not have TTC, it will be sufficient if she has any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary school Assistant.

In Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (2) KLT 116, one of us (Sreedharan, J.) had occasion to deal with the above question. It was held in that case on a consideration of Rules 3 (1), 3a, 4 (1) and 4a of Chapter XXXI of the K. E. R. that educational authorities are bound to approve the appointments of B. Ed, degree holders as Lower Primary School Assistants and upper Primary School Assistants.

(3.)IN view of the above said decision of this court, we are of the view that the respondent-writ petitioner falls within the latter part of Rule 45 A, as she is having an equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary school Assistant. IN that view of the, matter, there is no need to make in-charge arrangement, as the writ petitioner could be appointed in the vacancy of Headmistress in the school. The learned single Judge was therefore right in allowing the writ petition. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. . .
;