IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 35621 of 2005(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.M.KARTHU, P.D.TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, KANNETTUPADAM, PALAPPILLY.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, KANNETTUPADAM, PALAPPILLY POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35621/2005-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR DTD. 18/03/1993. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. HEADMISTRESS DTD. 16/06/1993. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE HIGHER GRADE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER AS PER PROCEEDINGS OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR DTD. 18/03/1993. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/11/2005 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE R.1. HEADMASTER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/12/2005 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE R.1. HEADMASTER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DTD. 09/09/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35621 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the communications Exts.P4 and P5 whereby it was informed that the refixation of pay and grant of pay revision benefits have not been correctly done as the petitioner is not having the required qualification. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as P.D. Teacher in the Government High School, Kannettupadam in Thrissur District. She joined service as an untrained teacher. Even though she had undergone the T.T.C course, she failed in the examination. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P1 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur in the light of G.O.(MS) No.522/58/Fin. Dated 20.05.1958 whereby she was granted permanent exemption from passing T.T.C qualification. It is specified in Ext.P1 that permanent exemption from passing T.T.C qualification is granted to the petitioner with effect from the F.N of 04.06.1991 as she has completed 15 years of service on the W.P.(C) No.35621/2005 2 A.N. of 03.06.1991 and completed 40 years of age, her date of birth being 10.09.1950. Ext.P2 shows the fixation of pay. 3. The only question is whether the stand taken in Exts.P4 to P6 is correct and the pay fixation made in her favour is defective for want of acquisition of qualification. What is pointed out in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent in paragraph 6 is that the Accountant General in the Local Audit of Accounts objected the pay fixation on the ground that there is no Government Order permitting sanction of grade promotion and increments to unqualified teacher before acquiring qualification. Such teachers are eligible only for the minimum of scale of P.D.Teacher till they acquire qualification. Evidently, the effect of the exemption granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 has not been considered. If the contentions of the respondents are accepted, then the petitioner will have to be continued with the scale of pay of P.D.Teacher till the petitioner acquires the qualification. 4. Evidently, going by Ext.P1, the petitioner is exempted from acquiring the qualification. Therefore, there is no meaning W.P.(C) No.35621/2005 3 in insisting that for getting the scale of pay the petitioner should acquire the qualification as the same is not insisted either by Ext.P1 or by any other competent orders passed by the Government. No orders of the Government are relied upon in the counter affidavit in support of the stand taken therein. Therefore, the exemption granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 will have its own force as far as the requirement of qualification is concerned. If a person is exempted from acquiring qualification, then he cannot be denied other service benefits because of absence of the very same qualification of which the exemption is granted. 5. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the Government Order dated 20.05.1958 is to the effect that trained teachers who have failed in the training examination but who have to their credit a service of 15 years and who have completed 40 years of age would be exempted from passing training qualification. When the Government itself has declared so, the objection taken by the audit cannot be supported especially in the absence of any contrary orders. W.P.(C) No.35621/2005 4 Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. It is declared that the audit objection cannot be sustained. Exts.P4 to P6 are therefore quashed. It is pointed out that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2006. The pensionary benefits due to the petitioner will be quantified, if not already done, in the light of the above findings and eligible monetary benefits will be disbursed accordingly. The order sanctioning the same will be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp