Statutes were passed cannot be accepted. If that was the inten- A tion of sub-r. (6), we would have found its language very different It would then have provided that teachers already in service and confirmed before July 1, 1952 would continue in their present posts even though they did nor fulfil the minimum qualifications. But the language of sub-r. (6) is very different. It begins with a non obstante clause and says in effect that whatever may be the B actual qualification of the teacher appointed and conthmed b& fore July 1, 1952 that qualification· will be considered to be equal to the minimum qualification for the post he holds. The words "for the post he holds" are only descriptive and mean that if a person holds the post of a lecturer, his actual qualification will be considered to be equal to the minimum qualification of the lecturer; if he happens to hold the post of a Principal, his actual C qualification will be considered to be equal to the minimum qualification required for the post of the Principal, even though in either of these cases the actual qualification is less than the minimum qualification. The obvious intention behind sub-r. (6) was to safeguard the interest of teachers already appointed and confirmed before July 1, 1952, and that is why we find language D which lays down that even though the actual qualification may be less than the minimum, that will be considered equivalent to the minimum. Once that equivalence is established by sub-r. (6), and it is held that even though the actual qualification was less, it was equal to the minimum qualification as provided by sub-r. (I), we fail to see how that deemed qualification can be given a E go-by in the case of further promotion or appointment. The appellant was a lecturer in Ramakrishna College, and though he had only a third class Master's degree, sub-r. (6) provided that that third class Master's degree must be treated as· equivalent to the minimum qualification necessary for the lecturer's post i.e., a second class Master's degree. Therefore, it must be held that from the date the sub-rule came into force, the appellant, though F he actually had a third class Master's degree, must be deemed to have a second class Master's degree, which was the minimum qualification for the lecturer's grade. Nothing has been pointed out to us in the Statutes which would take away this deemed qualification thereafter. We cannot therefore agree with the High Court that when sub-r. (6) says that a teacher appointed and G confirmed before July 1, 1952 would be deemed to have the minimum qualification-though in fact he does not have it-if only provides for this deeming so long as he held the particular post he was holding on the date the Statutes came into force. That in our opinion is not the effect of the words "the post he holds", for these words are only descriptive and have to be there B because the provision in r. (I) (!) referred to three categories, namely, lecturers, professors . arid principals. We may in this connection refer to sub-r. (5)· which shows that even if in future candidates with minimum qualification are not available, the
