IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 903 of 2006(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.16487/1998 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN THE O.P: ------------------------------------ S. ANITHA, U.P.S.A., ASAN MEMORIAL TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, VILABHAGOM, MELVETTOOR P.O., VIA. VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.NAVEEN.T SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN O.P: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. THE MANAGER, ASAN MEMORIAL TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, VILABHAGOM, MELVETTOOR P.O., VIA. ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 4. N. LEENA, TRAINING SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ASAN MEMORIAL TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, VILABHAGOM, MELVETTOOR P.O., VIA. VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SMT. V.P. SEEKANTHINI (SR.) FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 903 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. The respondents herein were the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The petitioner and the 4th respondent were working as Upper Primary School Assistants in the Teachers' Training Institute managed by the third respondent. During the academic year 1998 - 99, two vacancies in the cadre of Teachers Training Assistants arose. One of the vacancies was filled up by appointing one Shailaja, who is an Upper Primary School Assistant, senior to the appellant. The second vacancy was filled up by promoting the 4th respondent, who is junior to her. The appellant took up cudgels, but she realised that the said promotion was granted to her junior, relying on Ext.P3 Circular issued by the Government, W.A.No. 903 of 2006 2 regarding subject requirement in Training Schools. So, the Original Petition was filed challenging Ext.P3 and also the appointment of the 4th respondent made as per Ext.P4, relying on Ext.P3. 3. As per Rule 9 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R.), a Teachers' Training Institute (formerly Training Schools) will have the following posts. Headmaster - 1 Assistants - 3 Art and Craft Teacher - 1 Physical Education teacher - 1 Regarding the appointment of the three Training School Assistants, the Government issued Ext.P3 Circular. The relevant portion of the circular reads as follows: “In the circumstances, Govt. direct that the three TSAs in Teachers' Training Institutes should belong to the following three categories. 1. Mathematics 2. Physical Science or Natural Science 3. Social Studies, English or Malayalam. W.A.No. 903 of 2006 3 The above instructions will be applicable only to future appointments. Teachers already in service will not be affected by this instruction.” 4. Going by the above circular, concerning subject requirements governing appointment to Teachers' Training Institute, the two vacancies which arose in 1998 - 99 were respectively in categories 1 and 2 that is, one vacancy was in the post of Mathematics teacher and the second was the vacancy of a Science teacher. The petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Social Studies hand. But, since there was no vacancy in the third category of posts, Social Studies, English or Malayalam, she was not promoted. Feeling aggrieved by her non- promotion, the Original Petition was filed challenging Ext.P3 as also Ext.P4. 5. According to the appellant, for teaching Mathematics a Mathematics hand is appointed. For teaching Science, a Physical Science or Natural Science hand is appointed. But for Social Studies, English or Malayalam hand is treated as sufficient as per Ext.P3. The W.A.No. 903 of 2006 4 same is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. Going by the periods available for Social Studies, creation of a post of Social Studies teacher to teach Social Studies exclusively is obligatory. The circular has been issued without adverting to the number of periods available for each subject. So, it is liable to be struck down. 6. The learned Single Judge did not deal with the above contentions on merits, but directed the Government to consider the grievance of the petitioner against Ext.P3. She was directed to file a representation to the Government, pointing out her objections to Ext.P3. The petitioner has not chosen to file any representation, but filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the aforementioned contentions against Ext.P3. The learned Government Pleader, relying on the averments in the counter affidavit to the Original Petition, supported Ext.P3. As per the counter affidavit, any English or Malayalam hand can teach Social Studies. W.A.No. 903 of 2006 5 8. In a Teachers' Training Institute, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, English and Malayalam will have to be taught. For teaching Mathematics, a Teacher qualified to teach Mathematics alone can be appointed. But, for teaching Science, Physical Science or Natural Science hand could be appointed. But for teaching Social Studies, English or Malayalam, an English or Malayalam hand could be appointed. When there are only three posts, all the subjects would have to be accommodated to the maximum extent possible, without sacrificing the quality of education. It will be ideal if there is a qualified teacher for all the subjects. But, Rules regarding staff fixation do not permit sanctioning of more than three posts of Teachers Training Assistants. There is no challenge to Rule 9 of Chapter XXIII K.E.R. So, with the available staff strength, the best possible results are sought to be achieved by issuing Ext.P3 circular. The Government, which is presumed to know the needs of the students, have made the above prescription. We find nothing wrong, illegal or irrational about it. The contention that the said circular is arbitrary is also untenable. W.A.No. 903 of 2006 6 The competing claims of all the subjects have been considered and accommodated within the three posts available. The challenge against Ext.P3 is, therefore, repelled. 9. Having regard to the special facts of the appellant's case, she submits that the Headmaster at the relevant time was a Mathematics hand. He could teach some periods in Mathematics. Therefore, it was not necessary to appoint a Mathematics hand, who is junior to her. But, the validity of the circular cannot be considered with reference to the facts of a particular case. The circular is meant to have general application. For all degree courses in the Universities in Kerala, Part-I is English. So, any graduate can teach English. Further, Social Studies is a cluster of various subjects, which includes history, Indian Economics, Geography etc. Graduates in English, Politics, History, Economic, Commerce etc. are qualified to be appointed as Social Studies hands. In other words, there is no degree in Social Studies. So, if the Government takes the view that Social Studies could be taught by English or Malayalam hand, it is a plausible view. W.A.No. 903 of 2006 7 However, in view of the limited availability of posts, that is the only option left to the Government. For this reason also we are inclined to uphold Ext.P3. 10. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm