1. Interpretation of R.37 and 39 of the Kerala Education Rules (Rules for short) arises in this case. The quest ion is whether the 5th respondent in this appeal is entitled to court her service from the time of her appointment on 2 61945 till the date on which she obtained training qualification in 1951 as forming part of her "qualified service", within the meaning of that expression, in R.37 of Chapter XIV-(A) of the Rules. If the answer to this question is in favour of the 5th respondent, this appeal is to be dismissed because we do not think we should interfere with the judgment of Isaac J., dismissing the Original Petition on the ground that there was no formal appeal before the District Educational Officer, the 2nd respondent or on the ground that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the order Ext. P-3 by the 2nd respondent. We say so because the Assistant Educational Officer passed Ex P-2 order on 141972 and this was objected to by the petitioner in a proper manner and in accordance with the direction given by the Assistant Educational Officer, the 3rd respondent by sending a representation through the manager. This was on the 1