of Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A KER, the intention of the legislature is clear that it confers a preference in the matter of appointment to the post of HSA (English), to in-service candidates who are either teaching or nonteaching staff of the school in question. The question then arises as to whether, while determining whether or not there was a candidate with the preferred qualification available for appointment, and in whose absence a candidate with alternate qualification could be appointed, persons like the appellant who were not in-service candidates could also be considered for appointment . We feel, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, that under Rule 43 Chapter XIV-A KER, the initial consideration for appointment must be from among the in-service candidates available. In the instant case, it is clear the the 5th respondent was the only in-service candidate available. The eligibility requirements of the 5th respondent had to be examined vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed for the post. When we examine the provisions of Rule 2(x) of Chapter XXXI KER, we find that while the 5th respondent had a Post Graduate qualification in English and a B.Ed qualification in Social Science, he did not have the preferred qualification of B.Ed in English. The provisions of Chapter XXXI do indicate, however, that in the absence of candidate with a B.Ed qualification in English, candidates with B.Ed qualification in other subjects can also be considered. The question therefore is whether it could be said that there were no other candidates with the B.Ed qualification in English for the purposes of choosing the 5th respondent as HSA based on his alternate qualification. As already noted above, since the appellant's
