Jagannadha Rao, CJ.

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,