IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 19383 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SEENATH PRIYARANJINI K.H., D/O. KAKKASSERY HAMZA, MATHILAKAM. 2. INDIRA, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, VADAYAPT HOUSE, VADAMA, MALA. 3. RESMI RAMACHANDRAN B., BALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALINGAD, KAIPAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. LAL BHADUR SASTRI CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE 26/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19383/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER OF KERALA GOVERNMENT DATED 30.11.1995. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA GOVERNMENT DT.17.3.1998. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL BY NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION (N.C.T.E.). EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONOF THE ORDER. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF HALL TICKET. EXT.P4(b): TRUE COPY OF HALL TICKET. EXT.P4(c): TRUE COPY OF HALL TICKET. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19383 OF 2007 G =================== Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Siksha Visharad Holders of Hindi Sahithya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. Ext.P1 is the Government order approving the Hindi Prachar Kendra, Kondotty from where the petitioners got the aforesaid qualification. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the 2nd respondent recognised the Siksha Visarad as an alternative training qualification for appointment as Hindi Teachers in Aided Upper Primary/High Schools. 2. According to the petitioners, after undergoing training for the SET Examination, though they appeared, their certificates are not issued by the 1st respondent. It is on account of this the writ petition has been filed praying for appropriate reliefs. 3. As far as their eligibility for appearing in the SET Examination is concerned, petitioners submit that by Ext.P2 Siksha Visarad has been recognised by the 2nd respondent as an alternative training qualification for appointment as Hindi teachers in Upper Primary/High Schools and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of exemption provided in Ext.P4 for those who have passed language teachers training course from WPC 19383/07 :2 : acquiring B.Ed. It is their further contention that a similarly situated candidate was issued Ext.P5, admitting her for SET Examination. 4. As far as the claim of the petitioners for the benefit of exemption that is provided in Ext.P4 which lays down the method of appointment and qualification of teachers and non teaching staff in aided higher secondary schools is concerned, it is true that those who have passed language teachers training course are exempted from acquiring B.Ed for the purpose of appointment in the Higher Secondary Schools. It is also true that by Ext.P2 Siksha Visarad has been recognised as an alternative training qualification for appointment as Hindi teachers in Aided Upper Primary/High Schools in the State. The effect of Ext.P2, at best, is that Siksha Visarad has been recognised as a qualification equivalent to a training qualification for appointment as Hindi teachers. However, what is to be noticed is the equivalency so recognised in Ext.P2 is conspicuously absent in Ext.P4, which provided for exemption for those who have passed language teachers training course. 5. In my view, unless the equivalency granted in Ext.P2 is also incorporated in Ext.P4, those who have acquired Siksha Visarad cannot claim the benefit of exemption that is provided in favour of those who WPC 19383/07 :3 : have passed language teachers training course in Ext.P4. The rule is not under challenge and going by the plain terms of the rules, the benefit of exemption provided in Ext.P4 is not available to those like the petitioners having Siksha Visarad, but is available only to those who have passed language teachers training course. Therefore, the first contention made relying on Ext.P4 fails. 6. In so far as the benefit of Ext.P5 claimed by the petitioners are concerned, as already noticed, on merits I have negatived the claim of the petitioners. Even assuming that a benefit has been granted erroneously by Ext.P5, that cannot be the basis for claiming parity of treatment for others. Therefore, Ext.P5 by itself cannot be a foundation for claiming any benefit. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE Rp