IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 90 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33983/2008 Dated 28/11/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. M.H. MUNEER, P.D. TEACHER, GOVT. U.P.S. JAWHAR COLONY PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 562 2. R. JAYASREE, P.D. TEACHER DO.... 3. K.R. BEENA, P.D. TEACHER, GOVT. L.P.S., KARIMANCODE, PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 562. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD, BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 007. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A NO: 90 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th January, 2009. JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The petitioners are P.D. Teachers working under the respondents. They have the prescribed qualification for appointment by transfer to the post of higher secondary school teacher and higher secondary school teacher (Junior). But the Special Rules for the Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service and Kerala Higher Secondary Education Subordinate Service provide that they can be considered for appointment by transfer only in the absence of qualified high school assistants. The petitioners say, if the said prescription is allowed to stand, chances of their getting appointed by transfer as HSST or HSST(junior) are very remote and the entire transfer vacancies will be cornered by high school assistants. The said prescription in the statutory rules is against Ext.P1 policy earlier declared by the government in 1998, it is pointed out. 2. While framing the policy in 1998 the government might W.A.90/2009 2 have thought of giving a chance to PD teachers also for appointment as HSST and HSST (jr) on an equal footing with high school assistants. While the statutory rules were framed the government thought that high school assistants should be preferred and only in their absence PD teachers could be considered. This Court can interfere with a rule only on limited grounds. They have been summarized and stated by the Division Bench of this Court in Pankajaksy & others v. George Mathew & others {1987(2) KLT 723}. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:- “The rule made under a statute by an authority delegated for the purpose can be challenged on the ground (1) that it is ultra vires of the Act; (2) it is opposed to the Fundamental rights; (3)it is opposed to other plenary laws. To ascertain whether a rule is ultra vires of the Act, the Court can go into the question (a) whether it contravenes expressly or impliedly any of the provisions of the statute; (b) whether it achieves the intent and object of the Act; and ( c ) whether it is “unreasonable” to be manifestly arbitrary, unjust or partial implying thereby want of authority to make such rules.” 3. In the light of the above principles, we find that no ground has been made out in the writ petition or in the writ appeal to W.A.90/2009 3 interfere with the statutory rules. In the result appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: