IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17127 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RANI.N., AGED 30, D/O.NALINAKSHAN, LALATH MANDIRAM, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, WORKING AS HSST (SOCIOLOGY), S.N.V.HSS, ANGADIKKAL SOUTH, KODUMON. BY ADV. SRI.BENOY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER, S.N.V. HSS, ANGADIKKAL SOUTH, KODUMON, KOLLAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, SNV HSS, ANGADIKKAL SOUTH, KODUMON, KOLLAM. 5. KAVITHA.S., PUTHUPURACKAL, KALANJOOR P.O PATHANAPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. SMT. T.B. REMANY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 17127 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 10th June , 2008 J U D G M E N T The reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P8. ii) declare that the petitioner's appointment as HSST Sociology is legal and valid and therefore liable to be approved. iii) Declare that mini categorization/classification of B.Ed degree recognized by the UGC (belonging to the faculty of education) as B.Ed degree in the same subject, faculty etc. for the purpose of prescribing qualification for teaching in higher secondary as per rule 6(2) 28(ii) clauses 1 and 2 is ultra vires clause 1 of Appendix VII of the NCTE regulations 2002 made in exercise of the power under clause (f) and (g) of sub section 2 of section 32 r/w section 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act 1993 and clause 2 of the regulations under the NCTE Act viz National Council for Teacher Education (determination of minimum qualifications for recruitment of teachers in schools 2001 ) made by the parliament under entry 66 and 65(a) of list 1 of the 7th schedule which is having overriding effect over the provisions in Chapter 32 of KER and further that Rule 6(2)28(ii) Clauses 1 and 2 are W.P.(C) No. 17127 OF 2008 2 void to the extent of repugnancy with the central regulations made under the NCTE Act. iv) declare that the decision of the staff selection committee as evident from Ext.P6 treating all the MA sociology hands with 2nd class masters degree in the same subject and pass in SET (Sociology on an equal pedestal without considering the clauses of Rule 6 in Chapter 32 of KER relating to B.Ed in a subject like sociology in respect of which no B.Ed is available and therefore exemption from B.Ed was granted at the threshold for the purpose of SET as evident from Ext.P15. v) Or in the alternative declare that clauses 1,2 and 3 of rule 6 (2)28(ii) and Note 1 and 2 thereof is arbitrary, unworkable and repugnant to the provisions relating to SET viz. Exts. P12 to Ext. P15 r/w sections 10 and 11 of the Kerala Education Act 1958 and therefore inoperative and further that the petitioner's appointment cannot be invalidated on the issue of B.Ed qualification. vi) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the impugned clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Rule 6(2) 28(ii) to the extent it provides for mini categorization of B.Ed degree as B.Ed in the same subject, B.Ed in the same faculty etc. as inoperative and further direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for approval untrammeled by the impugned clauses if it is found void by this honourable court. vii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to W.P.(C) No. 17127 OF 2008 3 grant approval to the petitioner without further delay. viii) Issue such other writ or order in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the for the time being, the petitioner is pressing only for a direction to the first respondent to dispose of Ext. P9 revision pending before the Government, in which he has challenged Ext. P8 order dated 19.05.2008 passed by the Director of Higher Secondary Education. Learned counsel also submits that to enable the petitioner to move the Government for appropriate interim reliefs in Ext.P9 revision, operation of Ext.P8 order may be kept in abeyance for a short while. Learned counsel also pointed out that though the Manager took the view in Ext. P10 that the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service till an appeal is filed before the appropriate authority, as per Ext.P11, the Principal has taken the view that the Manager has no jurisdiction to issue an order or request like Ext.P10. 3. In the manner in which I propose to dispose of this Writ Petition, I do not think that it is necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that Ext. P9 revision will be disposed of by the Government without delay. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of Ext. P9 revision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as 5th respondent in the Writ Petition and the other respondents in Exhibit. P9 Revision, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months. To enable the petitioner to move the W.P.(C) No. 17127 OF 2008 4 Government for appropriate interim reliefs, operation of Ext. P8 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. 5. Since no notice is issued to respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the petitioner shall send a copy of this judgment by registered post to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 separately and shall produce proof of the same before the Government before consideration of Ext. P9 revision. The petitioner shall also produce a copy of the Writ Petition before the Government for a proper consideration and disposal of Ext.P9 revision. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk W.P.(C) No. 17127 OF 2008 5