IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1375 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21555/2010 DATED 27.7.2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------ LINCY MARY THOMAS, W/O. SELESTIAN, VADAKKEL HOUSE, KANICHAR P.O., KELAKAM, KANNUR 670674, H.S.S.T. (PHYSICS), L.J,M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE SRI.K.C.THOMAS (PALA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM -1. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE KOZHIKODE - 673003. 4. CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SCHOOL, DIOCESE OF MANANTHAVADY, PASTORAL CENTRE, P.B.NO.42, MANANTHAVADY, VAYANADU - 670645. 5. PRINCIPAL, L.J.M.H.S.S. KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR - 670651. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON ON 17/08/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Appeal No.1375 of 2010. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T Gopinathan, J. The writ appellant while pursuing studies for Masters degree in Physics, secured Ext.P1 order dated 13-7-2001 issued by the 4th respondent appointing the appellant as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST)in a school managed by the 4th respondent, wherein the 5th respondent is the Principal. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 23-1-2004 whereby the appointment of the writ appellant was approved with effect from 30-12- 2002. It is revealed out by the pleadings in the writ petition that the result of the examination was published on 13-11- 2001 and it is taking into account that the appellant secured required qualification, the appointment of the appellant was later approved by Ext.P2 order. The WA.No.1375/2010. -: 2 :- appellant was quite satisfied with Ext.P2. But, later on 8-6- 2010 she sent Ext.P3 representation to the 3rd respondent which was forwarded by the 4th respondent along with Ext.P4 dated 10-6-2010. Ext.P1 was made seeking an order to approve the appointment of the writ appellant with effect from 13-7-2001. Soon after, the appellant moved the writ petition WP(C)No.21555/2010 seeking a writ of mandamus against the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation and to pass appropriate orders. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 27-7-2010 dismissed the writ petition for the reason that the writ appellant cannot legally sustain the claim for approval of her appointment and consequential disbursement of salary with effect from 13-7-2001 on which date she had not acquired the required basic educational qualification and that since Ext.P3 carries unsustainable claim, it cannot be directed to be disposed. Feeling aggrieved, this writ appeal is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as WA.No.1375/2010. -: 3 :- well as the learned Government Pleader. 3. As found by the learned single Judge, at the time of appointment the writ appellant had not acquired the required basic educational qualification for being appointed as HSST. So, prima facie, the claim of the writ appellant is not sustainable. Secondly, though Ext.P2 is dated 30-12- 2002, it was not so far challenged. The appellant having slept over Ext.P2 for about 6 1/2 years had come forward with Ext.P3 representation. So long as the writ appellant has not cared to assail Ext.P2 on any valid ground within a reasonable time, the request of the appellant by Ext.P3, that too with an unsustainable claim, as rightly held by the learned single Judge cannot be directed to be disposed in exercise of the powers vested on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has not come with clean hands. Ext.P1 order appointing the appellant with effect from 13.7.2001 itself is to be rejected as the appellant had no required qualification as on 13.7.2001. Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education WA.No.1375/2010. -: 4 :- Rules mandates that for the post of HSST, in addition to Masters degree, the candidate shall have training degree or equivalent one. Whether the appellant had such qualification or when she acquired that qualification is not disclosed by the pleadings. In the absence of such pleadings, it is rather difficult to arrive at a finding as to whether the appellant is entitled to the relief sought for. The learned single Judge is perfectly right in dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (Judge) P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-