IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 30071 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.266/2008 of MUNSIFF.COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------ 1. M.C.SAJU, AGED 34, S/O.CHACKO, MALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, SANKARAPILLY KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE. 2. M.C.JAMES SUBIN, S/O.CHACKO, MALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, SANKARAPILLY KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE. 3. M.M.CHACKO, S/O.MATHAI, MALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, SANKARAPILLY KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE. 4. M.C.JOSEPH SIJO, S/O.CHACKO, MALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, SANKARAPILLY KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN SRI.PREMJITH.R.MENON SRI.ARUN PRAKASH SMT.A.R.SINDHU RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, P.O.PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. ADDL R4. THE THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER ORDER DTD. 18-02-2010 IN I.A.13538/09) GOVERNMENT PLEADER: ADV. SRI P R JAYAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30071 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : PLAINT IN O.S.No.266 OF 2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA EXHIBIT P2 : WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.No.266 OF 2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA EXHIBIT P3 : I.A.No.996 OF 2009 UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT P4 : ORDER DTD. 13-08-2009 IN I.A.No.996 OF 2009 UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy P.A. To Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2009 -E ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.B.Raghunathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.T.Muhamood, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Though respondents 3 and 4 have been served, there was no appearance on their behalf when the case was called on for hearing today. 2. The petitioners are presently working as Higher Secondary School Teachers in Commerce in the fourth respondent's school. The petitioners had before they were appointed as Higher Secondary School Teachers passed the B.Ed degree examination through the correspondence course from Madurai Kamaraj University. However their appointments were approved subject to the condition that they should obtain the B.Ed degree within five years from the date of appointment and that their probation will be declared only after they pass the B.Ed degree. Such a stipulation was made on the presumption that B.Ed degree obtained by the petitioners through the correspondence course is not adequate for the purpose of appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher. W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2009 -E 2 3. The petitioners did not acquire the B.Ed degree within the time stipulated. The petitioners therefore moved the Director of Higher Secondary Education seeking exemption from acquiring the B.Ed degree. The Director of Higher Secondary Education thereupon passed Ext.P22 order dated 25.9.2008 holding that as the B.Ed degree possessed by the petitioners is not adequate and they have not acquired the B.Ed degree within the period of five years stipulated in the orders granting approval, they are not entitled to continue in service. The Director of Higher Secondary Education also directed the Manager to terminate the service of the petitioners. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P22 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service as Higher Secondary School Teachers. 4. The fact that the petitioners possess all other qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher is not in dispute. The only dispute centers round the efficacy of the B.Ed. degree obtained by them from Madurai Kamaraj University through the correspondence course. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends relying on W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2009 -E 3 the decision of this Court in Sujakumari V. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 846) that in the absence of a stipulation in the Government orders which governed appointments of Higher Secondary School Teachers till Chapter XXXII was introduced in the KER that, only a B.Ed degree acquired after a regular course of study will be adequate qualification for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher, the stand taken by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. 5. In Mohanan Nair V. State of Kerala 1994(2) KLT 537, which was approved by the Division Bench in Sujakumari Vs. State of Kerala, (supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court interpreting the rules governing appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teachers held that no distinction can be drawn between degrees obtained after undergoing a regular course of study and those obtained by correspondence course. The learned Single Judge in Mohanan Nair V. State of Kerala (supra) was interpreting the Government orders governing appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher. In my considered opinion the issue raised in this case is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Mohanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala (1994(2) KLT 537) which was W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2009 -E 4 affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sujakumari V. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 846). In the result the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P22 is quashed and the respondents are directed to approve the appointments of the petitioners as Higher Secondary School Teachers and to disburse to them salary and allowances without insisting that they shall acquire the B.Ed degree in the concerned subject after undergoing a regular course of study. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Payment of monetary benefits shall be made within one month thereafter. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab