IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 21064 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MURALIDHARAN C.G., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, CHEMPAKKSERY, MATTATHOOR P.O., KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS IN-CHARGE OF B.P.O. (BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER,BRC CHALAKUDY TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 307) BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB SRI.K.R.MURALI SRI.PEARL.K.DAVIS SRI.I.K.RAJU SRI.K.A.HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SARVA SIKSHA ABIYAN, KERALA, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU W.P.C.NO.21064/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.A3-5295/2010/SSA DATED 10/7/2011 ISSUED BY STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, S.S.A, KERALA BY REVERTING THE PETITIONER. P2: BIO-DATA OF THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF TRAINING PROGRAMME PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER CONDUCTED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT. P4: COPY OF THE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER IN TEACHERS EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMME CONDUCTED BY REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH, SOUTH INDIA DATED 14/8/2010. P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.36916/10 DATED 22/12/2010. P6: COPY OF THE LIST OF SELECTED B.P.O.'S PREPARED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 18/11/2010. P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 29/7/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1: A COPY OF WILLINGNESS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 21064 of 2011-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order Ext.P1, by which he was reverted as Trainer under the Sarva Siksha Abiyan Scheme. 2. The petitioner has raised various contentions in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he has got 12 years of experience as P.D. Teacher and later as H.S.A. The contention raised appears to be is that various aspects including his qualification have not been considered. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not served with any notice and no explanation was sought for. 3. As evident from Ext.P1 there was a challenge made by one Shri K.K. Gangadharan in W.P.(C) No.36916/2010 against the appointment of the petitioner and others on deputation basis as Block Programme Officer. The Government ordered an enquiry in the matter and accordingly the State Project Director conducted the enquiry. Now the petitioner and two others have been reverted as Trainers by the said order. 4. As directed by this Court, the first respondent has filed a statement. wpc 21064/2011 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific rule that the required service should be ten years in high school and hence the attempt made by the respondents to revert the petitioner cannot be supported. It is also submitted that similarly placed persons are continuing. 5. In paragraph 2 of the statement it is clearly averred that a notification dated 13.1.2010 was published in dailies inviting applications on deputation basis for the post of Block Programme Officer from H.S.As. and Head Masters in Primary Schools. The qualification prescribed for the post were: (i) H.S.A. having 10 years service in High School teaching; and (ii) Primary School Headmasters who are having graduation. Eleven vacancies were there and the rank list was accordingly prepared from among the 14 candidates who attended the interview. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36916/2010, Shri K.K. Gangadharan was having 16 years of service, but he was placed 13 in the rank list and the petitioner was placed as 3rd. Finally, the petitioner and 10 others were posted. It is pointed out in para 5 of the statement that in the hearing conducted on 15.3.2011 by the second respondent it was revealed that the selection of the petitioner and three others, viz. Shri K.V. Ramajayam, Smt. Laila K.M. and Shri T.S. Raveendran are illegal. The finding rendered is that the selection was not wpc 21064/2011 3 in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed in the notification. The statement further shows that the order was passed after conducting a hearing by the second respondent and the petitioner and three others attended the hearing. 6. Therefore, it is a case where the reversion was ordered after finding that the petitioner did not fulfil the required qualification, viz. 10 years of service as H.S.A. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific rules are there for the selection, it is only a case where persons are deputed from high schools as Block Programme Officers, for which a notification was issued prescribing the qualifications. Therefore, the respondents had to adhere to the qualifications prescribed in the notification. The petitioner could not establish that he is having 10 years of service in high school. May be that he is having a total combined service of 12 years, but that will not in tune with the qualifications prescribed in the notification. Apart from that, it is pointed out in the statement that the petitioner expressed his willingness to continue as Trainer and Annexure A1 letter given by him has been produced in that regard. In para 7 of the statement it is averred that the petitioner and Shri T.S.Raveendran were shifted as Trainers on the basis of their willingness as they have lesser service for posting in the category of Block Programme wpc 21064/2011 4 Officer. 7. One of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from among the three, two persons are continuing as Block Programme Officers. Evidently, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, such continuance cannot be of any advantage to the petitioner, as the order directs reversion of all the three. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/