IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22765 of 2007(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MANJU ACHAMA GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O REJI, C.S.I.V.H.S.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, ASST.TEACHER, THIRUVALLA RESIDING AT KALLUMANNIL HOUSE, ANIKKADU (PO), MALAPPALLI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA RPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 5. CSI HIGH SCHOOL FOR DEAF, THIRUVALLA. * ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED * ADDLR6: JAYA.K.G., ASSISTANT TEACHER, CSI HIGH SCHOOL FOR DEAF, THIRUVALLA. * IS IMPLEAD AS ADDLR6 AS PER ORDER DATED 24/2/09 IN I.A.NO.1293/09. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANU R5 BY ADV.SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH ADDL.R6 BY ADV.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.22765/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.198/79/G.EDN DATED 22/11/79 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29/10/97 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD OF 10/8/98 TO 30/3/99. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/8/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE EXHIBIT P3 ORDER. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P4 ORDER. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/6/04 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING APPROVAL TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD OF 8/6/2001 TO 5/10/01. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/7/04 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING APPROVAL TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 6/10/01 ONWARDS. P8 COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER. P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 9/8/04 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P6 ORDER. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/1/05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISMISSING EXHIBIT P9 APPEAL. P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/1/05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AFFIRMING EXHIBIT P7. P12 COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P11 ORDER. P13 COPY OF THE REVISION DATED 28/2/05 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHALLENGING EXHIBIT P10 ORDER. P14 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/5/05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P13 REVISION. P15 COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P14. P16 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/6/06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FINALSING THE CHALLENGE AGAINST EXHIBNITS P6 AND P7. P17 COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER DATED 8/11/01 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P18 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/8/06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P19 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7/7/07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P20 COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.39/90/G.EDN DATED 5/3/90 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. sts WP(C)NO.22765/2007 P21 COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.33/90/G,EDN DATED 2/1/90 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P22 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1647/07/G.EDN DATED 13/4/07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE GOVT.LR.NO.30967/R2/01/G.EDN DATED 8/11/2001. R1(B) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M5-83338/2000/K.DIS DATED 13/11/2001. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22765 of 2007 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the orders leading to Ext.P16 whereby the approval of appointment of the petitioner was denied, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The Government, in Ext.P16 order, took the view that the petitioner is not having special qualification for appointment in the special school in question and, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of approval. 3. The petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P2 order of appointment dated 29-10-1997 initially and later during the periods from 10-08-1998 to 30-03-1999, 01-07-1999 to 18-11- 1999 and 19-11-1999 to 07-06-2001. The said appointments, except for the period from 10-08-1998 to 30-03-1999, were approved by the fourth respondent. The rejection of the approval of appointment for the said period was for the reason that the promotion of Smt.Sheela Mathew as H.S.A. was not W.P.(C) No.22765/2007 : 2 : approved. In the appeal also, it is confirmed as per Ext.P4. It is submitted that the promotion of Smt.Sheela Mathew as H.S.A. was approved later and there is no reason for not approving the service of the petitioner for the period from 10- 08-1998 to 30-03-1999. 4. Subsequently, the appointment was made for the period from 08-06-2001 to 05-10-2001 and thereafter, continuously from 06-10-2001. Initially, the fourth respondent rejected the approval of the appointment as per Ext.P6 order. The same was for the period 08-06-2001 to 05-10-2001. Thereafter, she was appointed from 06-10-2001 and the said appointment was also not approved as evident from Ext.P7 order. The fifth respondent filed an appeal against the same as per Ext.P9, which was rejected as per Ext.P10 order. The orders which were passed rejecting the approval for the earlier period were challenged and Ext.P11 is the oder passed by the third respondent, against which a revision petition was filed as per Ext.P12 by the petitioner. Ext.P10 W.P.(C) No.22765/2007 : 3 : order was taken in revision by the fifth respondent by Ext.P13, which was rejected as per Ext.P14 order. The same was challenged by the fifth respondent in Ext.P15 revision, which was disposed of by Ext.P16. The consistent view taken in these orders is that petitioner is not qualified. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already acquired B.Ed as evident from Ext.P8 degree certificate. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the qualification prescribed in Ext.P1 order. Paragraph D of Ext.P1 states the qualification as follows:- “D . Assistant Teacher on ` 235-395 plus special pay of ` 15/-(Pre-revised). Pass in SSLC or its equivalent and TTC”. 7. For appointment of Assistant Teacher on the scale of pay of ` 235-395 plus special pay of ` 15/- (Pre-revision), the qualification prescribed is pass in SSLC or in equivalent and TTC. W.P.(C) No.22765/2007 : 4 : 8. In the light of the above contention, this Court, by order dated 13-01-2011, directed the fourth respondent to file an affidavit in the matter, after verifying all the details with respect to the appointment of the petitioner and after identifying the pre-revised scale of ` 1125-1720 plus ` 25/- which is the scale of pay mentioned in Ext.P2 appointment order. 9. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:- “ It is also submitted that the scale of ` 235-395, which was available as per 1973 Pay Revision with effect from 01-07-1973 have been revised subsequently as follows:- 340 – 535 (01-07-1978) 660 – 1050 (01-07-1983) 845 – 1370 (01-07-1988) 1125 – 1720 (01-03-1992) 4000 – 6090 (01-03-1997) 6680 – 10790 (01-07-2004) As stated above the petitioner has been appointed in the scale of pay of `1125 – 1720 W.P.(C) No.22765/2007 : 5 : (6680 – 10790 revised as per 2004 Pay Revision), which is the corresponding revised scale of ` 235 – 395.” 10. Therefore, it is evident from the above state of affairs that the pre-revised scale of ` 1125 – 1720 is ` 235 – 395. 11. In Ext.P2 appointment order, the scale of pay is shown as ` 1125 – 1720 plus ` 25/-. Therefore, the corresponding pre-revised scale will be ` 235 – 395. 12. If that be so, going by the qualification prescribed in paragraph D of Ext.P1, the special training for appointment of teachers under paragraph B is not required. Therein the pre- revised scale of pay is `285 – 540. 13. Therefore, evidently, the petitioner's appointment being an Assistant Teacher, in a pre-revised scale of pay of `235 – 395, the special qualifications are not required. 14. In the light of the above, it can be seen that Ext.P16 cannot be sustained with respect to the above aspect and the appointment of the petitioner is legal and valid. The W.P.(C) No.22765/2007 : 6 : objection regarding Rule 51A claimant has been waived in Ext.P16. 15. Exts.P3, P4, P6, P7, P10, P11, P14 and P16 which to the extent to which they hold that petitioner is not qualified are quashed. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 08-06-2001 to 05-10-2001 and from 06-10- 2001 onwards in the pre-revised scale of pay of ` 235 – 395 and special pay of ` 15/- (Revised as ` 1125 – 1720 plus ` 25/- as shown in Ext.P2). Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will also be entitled for the consequential monetary benefits and the arrears will be disbursed to the petitioner within a further period of two months. 16. With regard to the period from 10-08-1998 to 30- 03-1999, Ext.P5 representation filed by the fifth respondent was disposed of by the Joint Director, Directorate of Public W.P.(C) No.22765/2007 : 7 : Instruction, as per Ext.R1(b). It is made clear that the petitioner will be free to agitate the validity of Ext.R1(b) in appropriate proceedings. The remaining issue is with regard to the grant of higher scale of pay based on the higher qualification from the date of its acquisition. This is a matter for the Government to take a decision in terms of the relevant Rules. Appropriate orders in this matter will be passed by the Government within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge