Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point to be decided in both the cases being the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The point that has arisen for decision in these cases is whether a person who has passed B.Ed. through correspondence course from the Annamalai University, though the said Degree is recognized by the Universities in Kerala, is eligible for appointment as Headmaster. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the cases are the following:

W.A. NO. 183/2000 T

The appellant joined the service of the second respondent's School as H.S.A. on 18.9.1973. He was a Language Teacher. He has continuous service in that cadre from 28.1.1976. He passed B.A. in 1986 and B.Ed. in 1988. The fifth respondent joined the school as H.S.A. on 15.6.1983. She joined with B.A. and B.Ed. She passed B.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University on 31.12.1980 and at the relevant time the same was recognized by the Universities in Kerala. But from 1981 onwards, it is submitted, the recognition of the said degree was withdrawn by our Universities.

2. A vacancy in the post of Headmaster in the second respondent's School arose on 1.6.1998. Admittedly, the appellant is senior in the cadre of H.S.A. But he did not have 12 years graduate service on the date of occurrence of vacancy on 1.5.1998. The fifth respondent was qualified in all respects. So, the Manager appointed the fifth respondent. It is not necessary to refer to the various orders in favour of and against the appellant passed by the statutory authorities. The final authority under the K.E.R., the Government by Ext. P7 order found in favour of the fifth respondent. That was the order impugned in the Original Petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition upholding Ext. P7. Hence the present Appeal..

3. The larned counsel for the Appellant Shri P.K. Ashokan mainly urged two points. The first contention was that since the Universities in Kerala have subsequently de-recognised the B.Ed. Degree Course of Annamalai University awarded after undergoing the correspondence course, it must be held that the fifth respondent is ineligible for appointment as Headmistress. It is common case that when the fifth respondent passed the B.Ed. Degree examination through correspondence course, the said Degree was having recognition. Therefore, on the strength of the recognized Degree, she was appointed as H.S.A. and the same was approved also. The subsequent withdrawal of approval of a Degree will not invalidate the Degrees awarded by a University earlier.

4. It so happens that a particular Degree of a University is recognized on finding that the various norms for recognition are satisfied. When subsequently it is found that the same standards are not being maintained in imparting instruction, the recognition may be withdrawn. But that will not affect the validity of Degrees obtained when the said Course was having recognition. SO, we are not inclined to accept the contention urged in this regard by the appellant.

5. The second and important contention urged by the counsel for the appellant was the one made relying on the explanation to Rule 44 (A). To understand the said contention properly, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions contained in Chapter XXXI. Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XXXI prescribes the qualification for Headmaster in the following manner:

"A Degree in Arts or Science and B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala".

Rule 1 of Chapter XXXI reads as follows:

"The teachers in private schools shall have the educational and professional qualification prescribed in this Chapter. The conditions regarding age, departmental qualifications,service qualifications and other service conditions shall be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules contained in the foregoing Chapters."

6. By virtue of this provision, there can be other additional qualifications apart from those prescribed under Rule 2 (2) of Chapter XXXI. Rule 44A presc