The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the word 'prescribed' in the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the government's authority to lay down qualifications for teachers by executive orders.

1. The prayers in this petition are for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent evidenced by Ext. P-3 dated 7 51965 and to issue a mandamus or other appropriate order directing the 4th respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for being selected to the T. T. C. Course. Petitioner was appointed as teacher in the Kadavathur East Lower Primary School by the 5th respondent, the Manager, with effect from 112 1964. Petitioner by her application dated 13 41965 applied for admission to the T. T. C. Course. Petitioner has passed S. S. L. C. only in the 4th chance. After the appointment of the petitioner, the manager sought approval of the department. The 1st respondent declined the approval by Ext. P-3 order, which runs as follows:

"The Manager, Kadavathur East L. P. S., is informed that as per orders contained in G. O. MS. No. 512/64/ Edn. dated 219 1964, those who have taken more than three chances to pass the S. S. L. C. examination are not eligible for appointment as untrained teacher in Primary Schools. Since M. P. Lakshmi, the untrained teacher appointed in his school has taken 4 chances to pass S. S. L. C. she cannot be granted exemption in the light of the above-said G. O."

The G. O. referred to in the order is Ex. P-6. In Clause.2 of that G. O.It is laid down:

"A pass in the S. S. L. C. examination or its equivalent examination with a minimum of 42 per cent marks each in English, Malayalam and Mathematics and an aggregate minimum of 40 per cent marks. Those who have taken more than three chances to pass the S. S. L. C. or its equivalent examination, shall not be appointed."

Petitioner's counsel submitted that Ext. P-3 order is bad for the reason that the Government have not prescribed the qualifications for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Counsel relied on S.10 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), which reads:

"The Government shall prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by persons for appointment as teachers in Government and private schools."

and contended that Government can fix the qualifications only by the rules framed under S.36 of the Act. The word 'prescribed' has been defined in sub-section (6) of S.2 and the definition reads:

"'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this Act."

Counsel therefore submitted that Government could not have fixed the qualifications of teachers by executive orders. The word 'prescribed' having been defined in the Act, it was submitted that that meaning must be given to the expression where ever the expression occurs in the Act and if so done, Government have no power to fix the qualification of teachers by executive orders. It may be noted that S.10 only uses the word 'prescribe', and that is not defined in the Act. It is significant that under the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, words singular shall include the plural and vice versa and words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include feminine. The learned Advocate-General, to whom notice was issued, submitted that the word 'prescribe' means prescribed by rules or by executive orders and since the word 'prescribe' is not defined in the Act, the court is not bound to give to that expression the meaning ascribed to the word 'prescribed' in the definition clause. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the word 'prescribed' has been used in sub-section (5) of S, 4 and even though the word used in that sub-section is 'prescribe', Government have framed rules for regulating the subject matter dealt with in the sub-section. That sub-section reads:

"The Government may prescribe the procedure to be followed at the meetings of the Board, and all incidental and ancillary matters for the proper working of the Board". No positive inference can be drawn from the fact that the Government have framed rules regulating the procedure or the incidental matte