IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28992 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHOUKKATHALI TAYYIL, H.S.A. (HINDI), M.S.M.H.S. KALLINGAL PARMBA, MALAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 3. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCINCE & TECHNOLOGY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, THIRUVANANGTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J. VARGHESE SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR LBS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 28992 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 JUDGMENT The claim of the petitioner is that the Acharya Teachers Training Course in Hindi conducted by the Kerala Hindi Prachara Sabha should be treated as equivalent to Language Teachers Training and B.Ed. for the purpose of appointment in the post of HSS Teacher (Senior) and (Junior) (Hindi). The claim was taken up before the 1st respondent and that has been considered in pursuance to the judgment in WP(C) 21957/07 and 12201/07. The Government have thereafter turned down the request as per Ext.P8. It is challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition has been filed. 2. As is evident from Ext.P8, the qualification prescribed in the Special Rules for the post of HSST are Masters Degree in the subject concerned with not less than 50% marks from any Universities in Kerala or WP(C) 28992/08 2 qualification equivalent thereto with B.Ed. and SET in the subject concerned. Admittedly what the petitioner possesses is only Acharya Teachers Training Certificate in Hindi as referred to above. It is praying that the qualification obtained by the petitioner should be recognised as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree, this writ petition has been filed. 3. It is settled law that equation of qualification is essentially for the appointing authority to do so and, it being in the domain of a policy decision, the scope for interference by a Court of law is very limited. In this case dealing with the claim of the petitioner, the Government, which is aware of the nature of the duties attached to the post, have stated in Ext.P8 that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not sufficient for appointment as HSST. Once the appointing authority has held that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is insufficient to hold the post of HSST, this Court will not be justified in WP(C) 28992/08 3 holding the same to be perverse in the absence of any material to arrive at such a conclusion. 4. The fact that the qualification possessed by the petitioner has been recognised for the purpose of appointment of UPSA and HSA, is hardly of any relevance when it comes to equation of that qualification for the purpose of determining the eligibility for HSST post. Petitioner cannot contend that the duties which are discharged by UPSA and HSA are same as that of HSST appointees. In my view, there is nothing irrational or perverse in Ext.P8 and the writ petition is only to be rejected. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-